get_todo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns specific fields (stable fields, owner, attachment context, etc.), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or side effects, which is acceptable given annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and quickly covers options and output, making it efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (anyOf locator) and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, how to locate a ToDo, and what fields are returned. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions for the locator parameter are detailed (e.g., 'LLM-first ToDo locator'). The description adds no extra parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a single ToDo either by raw ID or by a human-oriented locator (issue+title+owner). It lists returned fields, distinguishing it from siblings like list_todos or create_todo.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description specifies when to use raw ID vs human locator ('Prefer issue/title/owner forms when you do not know the raw Huly ToDo ID' in schema). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.