get_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned (e.g., checkbox status, parent task details), which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The bulleted list efficiently details return values without redundancy. However, the second sentence could be more concise, and some information might be better structured, but overall it's clear and wastes little space.

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 has an output schema (implied by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, yet it provides a helpful bulleted list of what's included. With no annotations and a simple input schema, the description covers purpose and output context well, but it lacks behavioral and usage guidance, making it slightly incomplete for full agent understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'todo_id' documented as 'Productive todo ID'. The description adds value by clarifying that this is for a 'specific todo checklist item', reinforcing the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond the schema, so it slightly enhances but doesn't fully compensate (though baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage).

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 specific action ('Get specific todo checklist item details') and resource ('todo checklist item'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_todos (plural) and get_task (parent task). It specifies it returns 'full task context' and detailed information, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 by mentioning 'specific todo checklist item' and 'todo_id', suggesting it's for retrieving details of a single todo, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_todos (for lists) or get_task (for parent tasks). No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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