List Todos

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds value by specifying capabilities like filtering and pagination, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some context without contradictions.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('List todos') and succinctly lists capabilities. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers core functionalities but lacks guidance on usage versus siblings. With output schema handling return values, the description's gaps are minor, warranting a 4.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description mentions filtering, search, sorting, and pagination, which aligns with parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents 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 description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('todos'), and specifies the capabilities ('with filtering, search, sorting, and pagination'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_todo' or 'complete_todo', which would require a 5. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools (e.g., 'add_todo' for creation, 'complete_todo' for updates). Usage is implied by the name 'list_todos', but no explicit context is given.

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