List to-dos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait (KEV-first, then severity, then EPSS ordering) that an agent could not infer from the schema. However, it omits the read-only nature, that dismissed entries are excluded by default, and anything about result size or pagination.

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 terse sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (sort order) is front-loaded before the filtering note.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the sort contract and filtering adequately. It could still say the list is read-only and that dismissed items are hidden by default, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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 limit, status, and kev_only are already documented in the schema. The description's 'filterable by status' merely echoes the status parameter and adds nothing for limit or kev_only, 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 a specific resource (the CVE to-do list) and adds the sort order, which lets an agent tell it apart from cve_detail and assess_todo. The listing verb is only implied via the name/title rather than stated in the description, so it falls just short of a 5.

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' describes a capability, not when to pick this tool over siblings like cve_detail or check_cves. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it relates to assess_todo.

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