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 behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — that comments are bundled into the response — but says nothing about read-only safety, permission requirements, or behavior when the todo_id is not found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the inclusion of comments are both stated immediately.

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 two-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, particularly since 100% schema coverage documents the inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could have described the returned item shape or error behavior and does not.

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% (both project_id and todo_id are documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (todo item), and adds a scope detail — that comments are included — which distinguishes it from a bare item fetch or the sibling list_todolists/create_todo tools. It stops short of naming get_todolist or explaining how it differs from that sibling, so it isn't fully 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_todolist, list_todolists, or update_todo, and no prerequisites or context are given. The description simply says what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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