get_todos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not disclose behaviors like error handling for invalid project IDs, ordering of tasks, pagination, or whether subtasks are included. For a read operation, this is a notable gap given zero annotation support.

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?

One sentence, no redundancy, and the key fact (project ID) is front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema (so return format is defined elsewhere), the description covers the core purpose and parameter role. However, it lacks usage alternatives and behavioral nuances that would make it fully self-sufficient for an agent. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The schema provides no description for project_uuid (0% coverage). The description adds that the parameter is 'its Things ID', clarifying the nature of the identifier, which the schema alone does not convey. However, it does not specify format, length, or any constraints beyond being a string, so the semantic enrichment is minimal.

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 action ('Get') on a specific resource ('a project's tasks') and identifies the key qualifier ('by its Things ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inbox (non-project tasks) and search_todos (generic search), so an agent can select it correctly.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a project ID and need its tasks. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., 'obtain the ID via get_projects' or 'use search_todos for filtered results'). The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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