tasks_list_todo

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, safe, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: it requires Tasks.Read permission, returns specific fields, and defaults to unfinished tasks. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't address pagination or rate limits.

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 sentences: first states the action and options, second lists return fields, third explains default behavior and typical use case. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 only three optional params, all well-documented in the schema. The description adds permission requirements, return fields, and default behavior. No output schema is needed, and the description covers what an agent would need to know for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic meaning by explaining the default behavior ('unfinished tasks') and listing return fields, but this is slightly ambiguous since the default status is 'notStarted' while 'unfinished' could imply 'inProgress' too. It doesn't significantly compensate beyond the schema.

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 tool lists the signed-in user's Microsoft To Do tasks, with specific optional filters (list and status). It distinguishes itself from sibling Planner tools by naming 'Microsoft To Do' and from tasks_list_todo_lists by focusing on tasks, not lists.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: defaults to unfinished tasks across all lists, which is the typical 'what do I need to do' scenario. It also explains optional narrowing by list and status. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it's slightly below a 5.

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