TODO 一覧

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that deleted records (deletedAt present) are excluded, that recurring items are not expanded but returned as 'repeating' templates plus in-range occurrences, and that expansion is the app's job, not the MCP's. It stops short of stating the read-only nature or the response shape explicitly, but the read semantics are strongly implied by 一覧する.

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 purpose and filtering rules are front-loaded, and the dense recurrence-rule block at the end is justified because there is no output schema describing the 'repeating' template. Every clause is information-bearing, though the spec-dump style for recurrence could be tightened.

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 zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, defaults, exclusion rules, and the structure of recurring items and their occurrences. Given the complexity of the recurrence domain, it is largely complete, though the shape of a returned TODO item itself is left unspecified.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: from/to are inclusive on both ends, dates are interpreted in the Account's timeZone, and status defaults to pending. These are semantic details the schema fields do not convey.

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 opening 'TODO を一覧する' states a specific verb (list) and resource (TODO), immediately separable from the mutation siblings (add_todo, update_todo, complete_todo, delete_todo). It also defines the scope precisely with the date/from-to filtering semantics.

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?

It clearly says when to use date (single day) vs. from/to (inclusive range) and what the omission default is (全期間). It also states the status default (pending) and that deleted items are excluded. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the filtering guidance is unambiguous.

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