todo

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

Beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the deferred-execution model (conditions fire as todoDue / roomAvailable through wait_events) and the consequential auto=true behavior ('そろったら聞かずに進める'). The subtle version/restart semantics ('足した会話を開いたまま新しい会話を始めただけでは数えない') are exactly the kind of side-effect detail annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and action list are front-loaded and the quoted action labels give the dense block visible structure. It is still a single long paragraph with no line breaks, and the when.type catalogue could be tabled, so it is efficient but not maximally scannable.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a nested when/start object and no output schema, the description covers actions, trigger semantics and event delivery thoroughly. Missing are the return shape after add (an id for later update/done/remove) and the meaning of note/cardAt, which an agent may need to use the tool fully.

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 82%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: all seven when.type values get operational definitions that the bare enum does not provide, and the pr/cwd/repo relationship is spelled out. It leaves gaps for note, by, cardAt and start's internal shape, so it does not fully compensate for the remaining uncovered 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 opening states a concrete verb+resource ('TODO（あとでやること）を書く') and immediately enumerates the four actions with the parameters each takes, so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It also names the sibling that owns the read path ('一覧は list_sessions の todos'), which cleanly separates it from adjacent tools.

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?

Each action carries a when-to-use clause (e.g. remove = '間違えて足したとき'), and the long when.type catalogue explains the exact trigger condition for every scheduling mode, including pitfalls ('ディスクに入っただけでは数えない'). It does not, however, contrast this tool against other workflow tools like report or wait_events beyond noting that wait_events surfaces due items.

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