tocaro_list_todo_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful non-obvious behaviors: the group code format, the internal conversion of after_due_time to UnixTime milliseconds, and the return code format used by other tools. It does not mention pagination or sort/query behavior, but the output schema and parameter names cover much of that context.

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?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose, required parameter, date format conversion, and return-value reuse. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter list tool with no annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the required parameter and one optional parameter well, and the output schema covers return structure, but the semantics of pagination, sorting, ordering, and query filtering are left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add valuable semantics for group and after_due_time, but five parameters (page, sort, order, query, per_page) receive no explanation beyond their names and schema types. That leaves a significant gap for correct usage of optional parameters.

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 states a specific action ('一覧を取得する') on a specific resource ('ToDoリスト' / API project), and clarifies that the group parameter is required. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tocaro_search_tasks, tocaro_create_todo_list, and tocaro_list_groups by naming the exact resource returned.

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 gives clear usage context: group must be provided, after_due_time takes an ISO 8601 string, and the returned code is meant to be reused as the project argument in other tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the downstream-use note helps an agent understand its role.

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