get-todos

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose safety traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, rate limits). It only says 'Get todos' without indicating if the operation is destructive or what the behavior is for large result sets.

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 eight words, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 low complexity with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description omits important context: what the return format is, ordering, limits, or how the include_items parameter affects results. A more complete description would provide this.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional project filtering, which aligns with project_uuid, but no additional semantics for include_items beyond the schema.

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 'Get todos from Things, optionally filtered by project', specifying the action, resource, source, and optional filter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-inbox or search-todos.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-todos or get-today. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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