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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the 15,000 character limit and file attachment support, which aren't in the schema. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when operations fail - significant gaps for a CRUD tool.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraints. Every element (comment management, CRUD operations, character limit, attachment support) earns its place. It could be slightly more structured by separating constraints from purpose.

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 CRUD tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the scope and key constraints but lacks important context about authentication, error handling, response format, and when to use versus alternatives. The 100% schema coverage helps, but behavioral aspects are underspecified.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the 15,000 character limit (implied for content parameter) and file attachment support (implied for attachment parameter). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Comment management for Todoist tasks and projects' with specific verbs 'create, read, update, delete comments'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comments rather than filters, labels, projects, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential comment-related tools that might exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use todoist_comments versus other comment-related approaches, nor does it provide context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the action parameter alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions management and querying but fails to detail critical behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'manage saved filter criteria' entails operationally. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond basic intent.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating querying from management aspects. Every phrase contributes to the tool's scope.

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 complexity (8 parameters, multiple actions) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances needed for safe and effective use, leaving significant gaps in context.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying that actions involve filters and tasks, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Filter management and task querying for Todoist' with specific verbs (query, retrieve, manage) and resources (filters, tasks, criteria). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like todoist_tasks or todoist_projects by focusing on filters, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_tasks for direct task operations or other siblings. It mentions general capabilities but lacks explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites for specific actions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full CRUD operations' but does not detail permissions required, rate limits, side effects (e.g., what happens on delete), or response formats. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with multiple actions, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('label management for Todoist') and lists key operations. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the action parameter's role.

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 complexity (9 parameters, multiple mutation actions) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in a CRUD context.

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 the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly, including descriptions and constraints (e.g., 'limit' with default 50, max 200). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying CRUD actions, which aligns with the 'action' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as 'label management for Todoist' with 'create, read, update, delete labels with full CRUD operations,' which specifies the verb (manage) and resource (Todoist labels) and indicates comprehensive functionality. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like todoist_filters or todoist_projects, which handle different Todoist resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like todoist_filters or todoist_projects, or within the tool itself for different actions (e.g., when to use 'create' vs 'list'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'archive' as an action but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, rate limits, or response formats. For a multi-action tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every element earns its place, though it could be slightly more specific about scope. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 complex multi-action tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how different actions work, what responses look like, error conditions, or prerequisites. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying 'metadata support' might relate to color, favorite status, etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Complete project management for Todoist' with specific verbs (create, read, update, archive, query) and resource (projects). It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_tasks or todoist_labels by focusing on projects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_tasks for task management or todoist_sections for section operations. It mentions 'metadata support' but doesn't explain when that's relevant or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the three reminder types and natural language support, but doesn't describe permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on create/update/delete operations. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently lists key features (reminder types and natural language support). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic features but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, side effects, or response format. It's adequate as a high-level overview but insufficient for full operational understanding.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the three reminder types (relative, absolute, location) and natural language due dates, which are already covered in the schema's 'type' and 'due' descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Manage reminders for Todoist tasks' with specific verb ('manage') and resource ('reminders for Todoist tasks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., todoist_tasks, todoist_projects) by focusing exclusively on reminders, not tasks, projects, or other entities.

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 usage by mentioning the three reminder types (relative, absolute, location) and natural language support, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_tasks for task management or provide any exclusions. It offers some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the six available actions, it doesn't describe what happens during each operation (e.g., whether deletions are permanent, if updates require specific permissions, what 'reorder' actually does to existing sections, or what the tool returns). For a multi-action tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the scope and available actions. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Section management within Todoist projects') followed by the specific operations. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more structured guidance.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns for different actions, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema without understanding the behavioral outcomes or constraints of this multi-action management tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Section management within Todoist projects' with specific verbs 'create, read, update, delete, and reorder sections'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like todoist_tasks and todoist_projects by focusing specifically on sections, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use sections versus other organizational methods (like labels or filters), nor does it provide context about when different actions (create vs. update vs. reorder) are appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the parameter descriptions alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full CRUD operations and batch support' but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens during deletions (e.g., permanent vs. reversible). For a complex 20-parameter tool with mutation capabilities, this is insufficient.

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 single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (20 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutation safety, response formats, or error conditions. For a comprehensive CRUD tool with batch operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage patterns. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Comprehensive task management for Todoist - create, read, update, delete, and query tasks with full CRUD operations and batch support.' It specifies the resource (Todoist tasks) and verbs (CRUD operations), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like todoist_comments or todoist_projects, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like todoist_labels for label management or todoist_projects for project operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for task management.

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