todo_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what a todo record contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the parameter semantics appended. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool this covers the essentials of purpose and filtering, but with no annotations and no output schema the description never says what the returned list looks like or how large it can get. Adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns credit above that by adding the omit-for-all default behavior, which the schema does not state. The 1=open/2=done mapping is repeated from the schema, so no additional credit there.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List HoldOn todos"), which is enough to separate it from todo_create/todo_complete/todo_update and from the differently-scoped todo_groups_list. It never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"omit for all" tells the agent how to get the unfiltered list, which is genuine usage guidance for the one optional param. There is no statement of when this tool should be preferred over the other todo_* siblings, so usage is only implied.

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