todo_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'shows' information (implying read-only) and provides counts and priority items, but doesn't address permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's real-time or cached data, or what format the output takes. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 extremely concise - just two brief sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only summary tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks important context about the parameter meaning, output format, and behavioral constraints that would be needed for optimal agent usage.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description doesn't mention the 'project_path' parameter at all, providing no semantic context beyond what the bare schema offers. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is higher than for multi-parameter tools with poor 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 states the tool's purpose: to provide a 'quick health check' showing counts of items by status (open, in progress, done) and top priority items. It uses specific verbs ('shows') and identifies the resource (todo items), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like todo_list or todo_add.

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_list. It mentions it's a 'quick health check' which implies a summary view, but doesn't specify when this summary is preferable to a detailed list or other sibling tools.

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