List actionable Boardroom todos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals sorting ('highest-priority') and filtering ('unassigned open') but omits ranking criteria, side effects, and whether results are dynamic per agent_id.

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 sentences, 25 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary information.

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?

Lacks details on return format, sorting behavior, and differentiation from list_todos. Without output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke this tool over alternatives.

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 only 33% (only include_description has a description). The tool description mentions agent_id is required but does not explain limit default or include_description's purpose, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns 'highest-priority unassigned open todos' and explicitly ties it to an agent pulling the next actionable item, distinguishing it from generic list_todos.

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?

Implies use for agentic task selection ('pull the next best chip') but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, leaving ambiguity versus sibling tools like list_todos.

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