todo_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and 'List' does signal a non-mutating read. It names the filter values, but omits what happens when status is omitted (all statuses? only open ones?), the sort order of results, and whether completed items are included by default. Since an output schema exists, return shape need not be described, but the default-filter behavior is a real gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource front-loaded and the filter detail second. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema covering return values, this is nearly sufficient. The missing piece is default behavior when status is omitted, which matters for an agent deciding whether a bare call is enough. Otherwise an agent has what it needs to call the tool 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 coverage is 0% and the schema types status as a bare anyOf string/null with no enum, so the description is the only place the valid values pending, in_progress and done appear. That is genuine added meaning beyond the schema. It does not say whether the string is case-sensitive or whether null means 'all', costing it the top 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the workspace todo scratchpad.' This distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools todo_add, todo_update and todo_remove, which the agent can infer handle writes. It could go further by explicitly naming those siblings as the alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read/inspect counterpart to the todo_* mutation tools, and the optional status filter is surfaced. However, there is no explicit 'use this when you want to review todos before updating them' guidance and no exclusion of alternatives.

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