List Boardroom todos

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination (limit parameter), result ordering, or that only tenant-specific todos are returned. The description only states 'returns todos' without these details, leaving the agent unaware of important runtime behavior.

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: purpose, use cases, requirement. No redundant information, every sentence adds value. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on pagination, filtering by assignee, and return format. For a common list tool, more context would improve agent understanding, but it provides the essentials.

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 50% (2/4 parameters lack descriptions). The description adds context for 'agent_id' (required) and 'status' (optional filter) but ignores 'assigned_to_agent_id' and 'limit'. It does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 that the tool returns todos for a tenant, optionally filtered by status. It provides use cases like rendering a kanban view or finding assignments, which distinguishes it from creation or update tools. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'list_actionable_todos', so not a perfect 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?

The description suggests usage scenarios (kanban view, assignments, next work) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No comparison with alternatives like 'list_actionable_todos' is provided, and prerequisites beyond 'agent_id required' are missing.

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