todo_restore

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 the tool 'gets' a snapshot, implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what happens if the snapshot doesn't exist, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's function and optional parameter 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?

Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves snapshots for restoration, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to explain what a 'todo snapshot' entails, what 'restoring' means in this context, or what the return value looks like. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior and output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. Since schema coverage is high, 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 'Get todo snapshot for restoring' with the specific resource being 'todo snapshot' and the action being 'get'. It distinguishes from siblings like todo_get, todo_list, and todo_save by specifying it's for snapshot restoration, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from other todo tools.

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 choose this over todo_get or other todo-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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