read_checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies non-destructive behavior via 'read' and discloses the return structure (checked state, indices, nesting depth). It doesn't cover error handling or permissions, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that leads with the core action and includes key output details without any unnecessary words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the essential return fields (checked state, indices, nesting depth). The tool is simple with one parameter, so this is adequate, though it could mention edge cases like notes without checklists.

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 already provides a full description of the 'note' parameter (exact name or id, uniqueness requirement), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline is 3 due to 100% 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 identifies the action (read) and the resource (checklist items of a note), and specifies the output fields (checked state, indices, nesting depth). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like read_note, which reads the full note.

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 phrase 'just the checklist items' implies exclusion of other note content, signaling when to use this tool over read_note. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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