get_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description is too vague to fully inform behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, using two sentences efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters or usage contexts, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 3 parameters (one required), and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, and usage context, making it only minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions filtering by completion status, which adds some meaning for the 'completed' parameter, but it doesn't explain 'project_id' or 'list_id' semantics. This partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 action ('Get todo items') and the target resources ('from a project or specific todo list'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_projects' or 'update_todo', missing full differentiation.

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 optional filtering by completion status, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_projects' or 'update_todo', nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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