Add Todo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it doesn't mention whether this creates a persistent record, what happens on duplicate titles, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this earns a baseline score.

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 maximally concise - a single clear sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and gets directly to the point.

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?

Given that the tool has comprehensive schema documentation (100% coverage), clear annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the minimal description is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tools, but the structured data provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (title requirements, optional description, priority enum values, date format, tags constraints). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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 'Add a new todo item' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('todo item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_todos' (plural) or 'update_todo', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_todos' (plural), 'update_todo', and 'complete_todo', the agent has no indication whether this is for single todo creation versus batch operations, or whether it should be used for initial creation versus updates.

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