List Chores

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation and 'all' implies an unfiltered scope, but the description does not disclose response size, pagination behavior, or permission implications.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to conveying the core 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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema and fully documented optional filters, the description is minimally workable. However, it does not mention the supported filter dimensions or distinguish this from the more specific chore-related sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer 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 all three parameters are already documented meaningfully in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, but the schema carries the full explanatory weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all chores from Donetick') and clearly states aggregate listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_chore or get_all_chores_history, but the scope is reasonably clear.

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 about when to use list_chores over get_chore, get_chore_details, or the chore history tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names are given, so usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and schema.

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