list_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), default sorting, whether results include metadata, or error conditions. For a list tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming key filter types. There's no wasted text, though it may be too brief given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or how filters combine. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter guessing.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering options 'by completion status, note, etc.', which loosely maps to 'completed' and 'noteId' parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('todos') with a brief mention of filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_pending_todos' or 'get_completed_todos' by being more general, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_todos' which also filters. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 like 'search_todos', 'get_pending_todos', or 'get_completed_todos'. It mentions filtering options but doesn't specify scenarios or exclusions. Without usage context, the agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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