todo_get

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 states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on error handling, return format, or integration with sibling tools, which would be helpful given the complexity of the todo/context toolset. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'snapshot_id' documented in the schema as 'Todo snapshot ID'. The description adds minimal value by implying it's used to identify a specific snapshot, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or where to obtain this ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific todo snapshot by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'todo_list' or 'todo_search' beyond mentioning it retrieves details for a specific ID rather than listing or searching.

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 'todo_list' or 'todo_search'. It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as needing a valid snapshot ID from another operation, or when this is preferable to other todo-related tools.

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