search_todos

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool searches both title and notes, but omits details like case sensitivity, partial matching, pagination, or response structure. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise: one-line summary plus a single parameter doc. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and clear.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, output schema present), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no mention of matching behavior (exact/substring), result limits, or ordering. Could be more complete.

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 description coverage, the description adds valuable meaning: 'Search term to look for in todo titles and notes.' This clarifies that the query applies to both fields, which the schema's 'Query' title alone does not convey.

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 'Search todos by title or notes', specifying the verb, resource, and search scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_advanced' or 'search_items' which may target different fields or use more complex logic.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for basic text search on todos, but fails to mention when not to use it (e.g., for filters or advanced queries) or list alternative tools.

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