List Boardroom todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the tenant-scoping constraint, which is useful, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or the default limit cap of 200.

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?

Three short sentences with scope stated first and no filler. 'agent_id required' is slightly wasteful since the schema already marks it required.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no pagination documentation, the agent is left not knowing what fields a todo returns, whether results are ordered, or how `limit` interacts with the default. Annotations cover safety, but the return-shape gap keeps this at minimum-viable.

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 50%: `limit` and `agent_id` have no schema description. The description repeats 'agent_id required' (already in the schema's required array) and 'optionally filtered by status' (already in the schema), while `limit` — with its default 50 and max 200 — is never explained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb and resource (returns todos) plus scope ('for this tenant') and a stated filter. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling list_actionable_todos or list_lanes, so an agent must guess which list to call.

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?

Three concrete usage contexts are given (kanban rendering, finding your assignments, picking next work), which is a clear 'when to use'. However, no exclusions or named alternatives appear, so it does not resolve the list_todos vs list_actionable_todos choice.

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