emacs_org_todo_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the scope (buffer or org files) is stated, but the description doesn't disclose possible side effects like loading files or the default org-agenda-files behavior beyond the schema.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and a full schema, but with no annotations or output schema the description should provide more context about return behavior and when to choose it over related org tools. The current description is adequate but leaves these gaps.

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 schema already documents both 'state' and 'buffer' including the org-agenda-files default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this baseline.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('TODO items') with a clear scope: a single buffer or across org files. It is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from emacs_org_agenda or emacs_org_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like emacs_org_agenda, emacs_org_search, or emacs_org_read. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or relationships to alternatives.

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