get_todos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (e.g., completion status, assignee information, due dates) and implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context about the return format but lacks details on pagination behavior or API constraints.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of return data. Each bullet adds value by detailing the comprehensive nature of the response. There's minimal waste, though the bullet list could be slightly more concise.

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 (4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned, which complements the output schema. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool versus siblings and doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'task_id' interacts with 'extra_filters' or clarify pagination defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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's purpose: 'Get all todo checklist items across all tasks and projects.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('todo checklist items') with scope ('across all tasks and projects'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_todo' (singular) or 'get_tasks', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_todo' (for a single todo) or 'get_tasks' (for tasks rather than todos), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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