todo_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context at all — notably it never says that completed tasks are excluded by default (include_completed=false) or that results are capped at 100 items, both of which materially affect what the agent sees.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence is purely parameter gloss rather than anything about behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is documented. Still, default filtering of completed tasks and the item cap are undocumented in both the schema and the description, which for a list tool is a meaningful gap an agent cannot recover from structured fields alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it usefully clarifies the required list_ref as "list ID or exact name" with an example, which is the non-obvious parameter. However, max_items and include_completed get no explanation of semantics such as defaults or truncation behavior, so compensation is only partial.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List tasks in a To Do list"), which is clearer than the bare tool name. The product qualifier "To Do" implicitly separates it from planner_list_tasks, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: it's the read-only listing tool for To Do lists, and the description explains how to supply list_ref. There is no statement about when to use this versus planner_list_tasks, todo_get_task, or todo_list_lists, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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