todo_add

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds value beyond them: the created item's default status is pending and the call returns the updated list. It does not address duplicate handling or persistence, but given annotation coverage this is solid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every clause (pending status, scratchpad, returns updated list) carries information an agent needs.

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?

A one-parameter output-schema-backed tool needs little explanation, and the description covers action, default state, and destination. The remaining shortfall is that the sole input's expected content is never described.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing about 'text'. The description only indirectly implies text is the todo content; it says nothing about format, length, or whether markup is allowed, so the gap is only partially compensated.

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?

States a specific verb (Add) plus resource (a todo), the target location (workspace scratchpad), the default status (pending), and the return behavior (updated list). This lets an agent distinguish it from todo_list, todo_update, and todo_remove without opening any 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?

The 'Add' framing implies usage relative to todo_update/todo_remove/todo_list, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a scratchpad session must exist). Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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