List to-dos

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the non-obvious sort order (confirmed-KEV, then confirmed findings, then severity/EPSS), which is real added value, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or the shape of the returned entries.

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 with no filler; the priority ordering — the most decision-relevant fact — leads the description, and filtering is appended compactly.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more. It explains ordering and filtering but omits what a returned to-do actually contains (CVE id, status, KEV flag) and how the KEV-first sort interacts with the kev_only filter.

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% and each parameter is fully documented (limit default 40, status enum with a default, kev_only boolean). The description's 'filterable by status' merely restates one schema field and adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('The CVE to-do list') and its ordering, which combined with the verb in the tool name makes the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like assess_todo or reset_todos by being the enumeration tool, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

'Filterable by status' plus the stated priority ordering implies this is the triage/entry-point read for a vulnerability queue, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as scan_inventory or check_cves.

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