List actionable Boardroom todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only (e.g., does not modify todos) or describe side effects. The agent is left unaware of potential changes to todo states or data, which is a significant gap for a list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core functionality and following with a requirement. Every word is useful, and there is no redundancy. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context, such as return format, pagination, or sorting details. It does not specify what fields are in each todo or how priority is determined. The agent cannot fully understand what to expect from the tool's response.

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 only 33% (only 'include_description' has a description). The description only restates that 'agent_id' is required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. The purposes of 'limit' and 'include_description' are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer from incomplete schema documentation.

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 it returns 'highest-priority unassigned open todos, ranked', specifying the verb (returns), resource (todos), and scope (highest-priority, unassigned, open). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_todos' which likely provide all todos without prioritization or assignment filtering.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving the next actionable todo for an agent without prose handoffs. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like 'list_todos' for a general list. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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