akb_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a todo' without discussing side effects, permissions, response format, or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise, using two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a helpful tip, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks return value details, error handling, and operational nuances, though the core purpose is covered.

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 high (86%), and the schema already describes each parameter adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, e.g., implying assignee determines self vs other, but this is already clear from the schema description.

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 action (create), resource (todo), and scope (self or someone else). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like akb_todos and akb_todo_update by specifying creation and personal task nature.

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 provides a direct usage context (creating todos for self/others) and explicitly mentions an alternative tool (akb_todos) for checking pending items. However, it lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.

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