get_todo

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by explicitly stating 'Side effects: read-only' and 'Errors if the id does not exist'. It also provides an example output, giving sufficient behavioral context for a read operation. Could optionally mention rate limits or caching, but not required.

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?

Three efficient sentences: purpose/fields, example, and side effects/errors. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-resource fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, what fields are returned via example, and error conditions. It is adequately complete, though adding explicit mention of return type could push it to 5.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds that short IDs (first 8 characters) are accepted and provides an example, which is minimal extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the work.

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 'Fetch the full details of a single todo by ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It lists the fields returned (description, status, due date, tags) and provides an example, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_todos or update_todo.

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 usage when you have a specific todo ID, and mentions that it errors if the ID doesn't exist. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_todos for fetching multiple todos, leaving a slight gap in when-not-to-use guidance.

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