list_todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: default ordering, limit, and default completion state. This goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, both essential. First sentence states purpose, second sentence covers default behavior and available filters. No redundant or irrelevant information. The description is front-loaded and 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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key filtering capabilities and default behavior. It mentions the default limit of 50 and ordering. It does not explain the nested 'issue' parameter in detail, but the schema covers that. It also doesn't mention sorting beyond 'planner order', which is acceptable. Overall, sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the filter parameters (owner, issue, title, due date, priority, visibility, completion) in a compact, human-readable way, which adds semantic value beyond the schema itself. It groups them effectively, though it does not detail types or nested structure beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists Huly Planner ToDos, which is a specific resource. The verb 'List' is explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_issues or list_boards, which could cause ambiguity if the agent needs to choose between multiple list operations. The name itself helps, but the description could be more explicit about the resource type.

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 implies usage for listing todos and mentions filters to narrow results. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_issues for issues, or other list_* tools). The default behavior (empty input returns up to 50 todos) is helpful but lacks guidance on when not to use it or context for exclusion.

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