create_todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions the tool can 'create or add' and 'append to existing TODO list', but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it overwrites or merges content, error handling, or file system implications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. However, the second sentence slightly repeats the first ('create' vs 'create or add'), and it could be more front-loaded with critical distinctions.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context like required permissions, file path defaults/behavior, error scenarios, and what 'append' means operationally. The agent would struggle to use this tool confidently.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'create or add' context, which doesn't enhance understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 clearly states the verb ('create or add') and resource ('TODO item'), specifying it can create new items or append to existing lists. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'append_to_note' or 'write_note' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'create or add' and 'append to existing TODO list', but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternatives like 'append_to_daily_note' or 'write_note'. This leaves the agent with unclear decision boundaries.

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