get_random_todos

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

No annotations are provided. The description transparently explains it returns a random sample with a default count, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or other behavioral traits like idempotency.

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?

The description is a well-structured docstring with an Args section. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

Given the two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality adequately. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Slight room for improvement in behavioral details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter (project_uuid and count) including their default values, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Get a random sample of todos' with an optional filter, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_todos (which gets all todos) and other random getters.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_todos or get_random_anytime. It implies usage for random sampling, but lacks direct guidance or comparisons.

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