List TODO entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses default filtering (excludes DONE/CANCELLED), sorting behavior, and optional filters. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it returns full entries or summaries, or any side effects. For a listing tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs useful details (default exclusions, sorting, optional filters) without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior: what is listed, default exclusions, sorting, and available filters. It doesn't describe the return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is a minor gap. The tool is adequately specified for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description adds context that filters are optional and that state filtering uses exact TODO keywords, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists TODO entries, specifies the default exclusion of DONE/CANCELLED, and mentions sorting by priority then due date. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like org_search and org_agenda by focusing on TODO-like entries across org files.

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: to list open TODO entries across files, with optional filters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools and the phrase 'across all org files' helps an agent understand it's a broad listing tool rather than a search or agenda tool.

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