List todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: the list is 'shared' and 'global', clarifying scope, and 'formatted as a checklist' gives the agent an idea of the return presentation despite no output schema.

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?

A single sentence that states the resource, the action, and the output format with no filler. Every element earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and a rich schema, the description covers the shared-global nature and checklist output. Without an output schema, more detail about returned fields could help, but this is adequate for correct invocation and interpretation of the core intent.

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 all six parameters are already documented with defaults and enum constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('items from the shared global TODO list'), and adds output formatting ('as a checklist'). It distinguishes this as the read-only listing tool among sibling mutation tools like todo_add and todo_edit, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 implies this is for viewing items on the shared TODO list, and the sibling names make it obvious this is the read path. However, it does not state when to prefer todo_list over todo_history or mention exclusions such as 'use todo_history for past versions'.

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