todo_list

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 mentions that the tool shows items with optional filtering, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show all todo items') and adds a concise qualifier about filtering. There is no wasted language, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, doesn't fully cover parameters (e.g., 'project_path' is unexplained), and provides no output information. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an 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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It mentions optional filtering by status or priority, which aligns with two parameters, but doesn't explain the 'project_path' parameter (33% of parameters lack schema descriptions). With 67% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'project_path' parameter.

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 verb ('Show') and resource ('all todo items'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'todo_add' (creation) and 'todo_update' (modification) by focusing on retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'todo_summary', which might also involve listing items, making it slightly less specific.

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 like 'todo_summary' or other filtering methods. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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