todo_find_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses case-insensitive matching, that only the FIRST match is returned (a significant truncation behavior for duplicate names), and that a miss returns {}. It omits any explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement, but that is strongly implied by "Find ... Returns".

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key, followed by return behavior. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time behavior (name matching, first-match return, empty-object miss). Only the exact-vs-partial match question and duplicate-name ordering remain unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by clarifying the single parameter is a case-insensitive display name. It leaves a key ambiguity unresolved: whether matching is exact or substring/prefix, which directly affects how callers must supply the name.

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?

States a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("To Do list") plus the lookup key (display name), which is meaningful against siblings like todo_create_list or todo_delete_list. It does not explicitly contrast with todo_list_lists, leaving the by-name vs. enumerate distinction to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for when a list name is already known, but the description never states when to prefer it over todo_list_lists or how to recover from an empty result (fall back to listing?). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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