list_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only implies a read operation via '查詢' but does not explicitly state it is read-only, what happens on invalid project numbers, whether pagination exists, or any side effects. The mention of '包含欄位與項目' hints at output structure but lacks clarity.

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?

Single sentence containing essential purpose and scope. No redundancy. However, it could be expanded slightly to include usage context without losing conciseness.

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 listing tool without output schema or annotations, the description lacks crucial context: return value structure, read-only nature, error behavior, and relationship to other todo tools. The hint about 'fields and items' is insufficient to fully understand what the agent will receive.

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% (pno described as '專案編號'), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—does not explain format, length, or examples. This is adequate but not additive.

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 queries a project's to-do board including fields and items (查詢專案的待辦看板（含欄位與項目）). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_projects, list_bugs) by specifying the resource type and inclusion of board structure.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_todo, search_tags). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., project must exist) and no scenarios where it should not be used.

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