todo_create_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about required permissions, whether display names must be unique, what happens on duplicate names, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 (one required string, no nesting, no output schema), so the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. However, it omits what the call returns (e.g., a list ID that todo_create_task would need), which matters for chaining calls.

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?

The single parameter display_name has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning such as format, length limits, uniqueness constraints, or how it differs from any internal list name. The only parameter is effectively undocumented in both places.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('To Do list'), which is unambiguous against siblings like todo_update_list and todo_delete_list whose names carry the contrasting operation. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the CRUD naming convention makes the distinction obvious.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus todo_create_task or the planner equivalents, and no prerequisites such as whether the caller needs an existing list or account context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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