create_todo

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 discloses that it is a 'write operation' and 'protected by whitelist and frequency limit', but does not explain what happens on success or failure, whether it is idempotent, what the response looks like, or any side effects. For a mutation tool this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical note, which is concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage from behavior).

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 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any constraints beyond the protection note. For a tool with multiple parameters, this is incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own property descriptions. It mentions the project scope but does not elaborate on parameters like pno, title, or optional fields.

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 ('建立' = create), the resource ('待辦項目' = to-do item), and the scope ('在指定專案中' = in a specified project). It also mentions it's a write operation with protections, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_todos (read-only) or create_bug (different resource).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_requirement or create_bug. There is no explicit mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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