get_completed_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all completed todos' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are ordered, if pagination is handled (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all completed todos'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, ordering, authentication needs, or how it interacts with siblings. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of behavioral context and output details makes this inadequate for a tool that retrieves data.

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%, with both parameters ('workspaceId' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying retrieval of 'all' completed todos, which might conflict with the optional 'workspaceId' and 'limit' constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get all completed todos' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('completed todos'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pending_todos' and 'list_todos' by specifying the completion status, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'search_todos' which might also filter by completion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'list_todos' (which might return all todos), 'get_pending_todos', or 'search_todos' (which could filter by completion). There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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