list_sections

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or that the tool returns a list. While the schema implies pagination via cursor and limit, the description omits this context. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely minimal and could benefit from including key details (e.g., pagination) without losing conciseness.

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) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, default ordering, or how 'list all' interacts with the limit parameter. The agent may misinterpret the tool's behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. The parameters are self-documented in the schema, and the description does not provide additional context or examples.

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 'List all sections in a Todoist project' clearly states the action (list) and resource (sections) with a scope (in a project). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like add_section, get_section, delete_section, and update_section, which have distinct purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, filters, or contextual cues. The description is purely declarative, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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