List Todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add genuinely behavioral context beyond them — that only open, non-snoozed items are returned — which is a meaningful filter the schema does not express. It is silent on pagination behavior and result ordering, so it adds value but not deeply.

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 front-loaded sentence that establishes the scope constraint ('open, not snoozed') before listing representative examples. The trailing 'and more' is mild filler but the enumeration is doing real work by hinting at the types parameter values.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary. For a zero-required-parameter aggregate list tool, the description covers scope and content adequately. It could go further by explaining how to act on returned to-dos (which siblings consume which type), but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 67%, with the types parameter well documented including example values, and company described as id-or-name with the single-company omission rule. The description contributes nothing about limit, types, or company, so it neither compensates for the uncovered limit parameter nor adds meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource — open, non-snoozed to-dos in Wint — and enriches it with concrete examples (missing documents, supplier invoices, receipts, accountant messages). An agent understands this is an aggregate inbox feed rather than a single-entity getter, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like list_missing_documents or get_supplier_invoices, which return overlapping subsets.

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: an agent can infer this is the broad 'everything outstanding' entry point versus the type-specific sibling tools, but nothing states when to prefer this over list_missing_documents or get_receipts. No prerequisites, no mention of whether it requires a connected Wint session (connect_wint/wint_status exist as siblings).

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