list_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List all" implies a read operation and unbounded results, but it never states read-only semantics, pagination behavior, or that results are scoped to the given list — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance rather than being purely economical.

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 two-parameter list tool with fully documented schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema it gives no hint about return shape, and it omits any usage context, so it is only adequate.

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 both project_id and todolist_id are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of "a todo list" loosely maps to todolist_id but adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a clear verb and resource ("List all todos in a todo list"), but it largely restates the tool name and adds little scope detail. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_todo or list_todolists, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_todo, list_todolists, or other retrieval tools. The agent gets no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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