Add todo

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

Annotations correctly indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation, and the description aligns with that. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting the list is 'shared global', which implies that adding affects a common resource visible to others. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on success or failure (e.g., return value), but this is relatively minor for a non-destructive add operation.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the key usage distinction follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 6 parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the major decision point (which list to use). The only notable gap is that the description doesn't mention the return value (e.g., created item, ID, confirmation), which could matter since there is no output schema. Overall, it's still complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by giving each list meaningful purpose ('park' versus 'near-term actionable'), which is semantic guidance the schema doesn't provide. This additional distinction justifies a 4.

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 states a specific action ('Add a new item') on a specific resource ('the shared global TODO list'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like todo_edit and todo_delete, and it even clarifies the semantics of the two lists, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 exemplary routing guidance: explicitly states when to use list='backlog' (deferred findings, low-priority follow-ups) versus list='todo' (near-term actionable items). This directly helps an agent decide which list to use, going beyond what the schema's default value alone would convey.

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