upc_service_my_todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds things annotations cannot: that a response is exactly one page with total/has_more/complete_for_page/complete_for_scope, that an empty identity yields a valid empty result rather than an error, and that titles and node text are untrusted data — a real prompt-injection guard.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is organized as scope, pagination semantics, empty-result behavior and a data-trust warning. Some wording is redundant, such as 'complete_for_page and complete_for_scope describe exactly what was read', and the doubled backticks add noise, but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the metadata fields an agent will see and sets expectations about per-page versus per-scope completeness. It omits what an individual todo item contains and any ordering guarantee, which are the only notable gaps for a three-parameter read tool.

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 67%, with page and page_size already described in the schema (including the server-side cap of 50). The description adds only the general notion that one response is one page and further pages can be read; it says nothing about session_ref beyond the schema's const 'self', so the 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: read one page of the bound user's pending e站通 todo list, and flags it as read-only. It implicitly separates itself from siblings such as upc_service_my_applications and upc_service_search by scoping to 'pending' todos, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 explains the scope of the read (pending-at-me queue via status=1) and states exclusions: no unread messages, no other statuses, no full history. Those exclusions are useful, but it never tells the agent which sibling tool to use when it actually needs unread messages or history, so routing is left to inference.

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