List Todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or handling of large result sets. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description provides zero extra transparency.

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 one clear sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, given the tool's 8 parameters, it could benefit from a brief mention of available filters. It earns a 4 because it is effective for what it intends but not maximally informative.

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?

Despite having 8 optional parameters (0 required), no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description only states the basic purpose. It lacks details on filtering, pagination, return format, or preview of common usage. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively with all its features.

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 0%. The description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (page, type, state, action, group_id, per_page, author_id, project_id) or their enums. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to do so, leaving agents without semantic understanding of filters.

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 'to-do items' with scope 'for the current authenticated user'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_mark_todo_done and gitlab_mark_all_todos_done by specifying it is only for listing.

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 (e.g., gitlab_my_issues), nor does it mention filter or pagination usage. No context about prerequisites or intended scenarios is given.

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