wb_todo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that write operations require confirm and that this domain contains write operations, which is a critical side effect. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or further side effects of dispatched commands, leaving some ambiguity.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured, using clear separations for each parameter. It contains no fluff; every sentence adds value (e.g., long-text recommendation, confirm gate). It could be slightly more compact, but it remains efficient.

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 the sibling tools, this description sufficiently establishes the tool as a general dispatcher for the todo domain. It mentions the domain and confirm mechanism but doesn't enumerate all possible subcommands; however, the sibling list implies that specialized tools handle those, making this context adequate.

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?

The description thoroughly explains all three parameters with concrete examples (e.g., command string vs. args array, confirm boolean). It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying precedence (args takes priority) and providing real usage examples for each parameter. Coverage is 100% with additional practical context.

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 identifies this as a domain dispatcher for todo, capsule, idea, bug, book, and schedule commands, with operations like list/detail/complete/edit/tag. It conveys the tool's role as a general entry point for this domain, though it doesn't explicitly name a single verb like 'execute' or 'manage'.

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 practical guidance: it highlights the confirm requirement for write operations, recommends the args array for long text to avoid shell splitting, and explains the command vs. args precedence. It doesn't explicitly contrast with specialized sibling tools, but the domain scope makes the intended use clear.

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