List to-dos

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substance they don't: plain-text return, a 100-line cap, ordering rules (open first, by priority then due date), the exact line format including the [x]/[ ] marker, the empty-result string "Nothing open." This is a tool with no output schema, and the description compensates for it.

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?

Purpose and the sibling comparison are front-loaded, and the quoted line format is dense but useful. The format/order sentence is long and packs several facts into one clause chain, which costs a little readability but every element earns its place.

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?

With only 2 optional params, no output schema, and a simple read, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it's ordered, the size limit, the empty case, and how the output id feeds the mutation siblings. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the enum values and project filter are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the filters as "optionally only open or done ones, or one project" but omits the third enum value "all", adding no real semantics 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?

Specific verb + resource ("List the to-dos in the owner's planner in Sara") with scope qualifiers (open/done, one project). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_today, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

States two concrete use cases (see the whole list, find a to-do's id) and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ("use get_today for just what's due today"). It also tells the agent the id is the key consumed by complete_task/update_task/delete_task, which links it into a workflow.

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