Fetch tasks from a To Do list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a read operation (fetch), specifies the return fields (titles, status, due dates, notes, checklist subtasks), and reveals the default behavior (open tasks only). This goes beyond the schema, which only describes parameters. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, which would push it to 5.

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 concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: the first states the primary action and scoping, the second enumerates return fields, the third explains defaults. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the default state. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination limits, ordering, or prerequisites (e.g., needing list names from todo_get_lists), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the overall purpose ('by name, optionally scoped to a group/folder') and the default behavior ('Defaults to open not completed tasks only'). It also clarifies what the include_details parameter affects (returns notes and checklist items). This additional context elevates the score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('tasks from a Microsoft To Do list'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like todo_get_lists (which retrieves lists, not tasks) and todo_create_task (which creates tasks). The optional scoping to a group/folder further clarifies the tool's unique capability.

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 implies usage context (fetching tasks from a named list, optionally scoped to a group), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use todo_get_lists, todo_create_task, or todo_complete_tasks). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, so usage is only implied.

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