list_todos

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

In the absence of annotations, the description explicitly states 'Side effects: read-only', disclosing the tool's safety profile. It also describes the output format and ordering, providing sufficient behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, but the example and workflow sentences could be integrated.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output, ordering, side effects, sibling differentiation, and typical workflow, making it highly complete.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to add param details. It adds value by explaining the return structure and example, meeting the baseline expected.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'todos', differentiating them as actionable tasks with status and due dates, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools list_memos and list_events.

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 explicit alternatives (list_memos, list_events) and a typical workflow (followed by mark_todo_done or get_todo). While it doesn't exhaustively cover all scenarios, it gives strong context for when to use this tool.

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