My Todos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's main behavioral disclosure (requires authentication) adds context beyond the annotations. It explains what a todo is and the scope of results, but does not elaborate on data lifecycle or side effects, which is acceptable given annotations.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the primary purpose and succinctly adds filtering and auth constraints. Every word earns its place.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filtering, but lacks details on pagination (first, after, fetchAll) and sorting defaults. The schema provides those details, but the description could be more complete for an agent without seeing the schema.

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 for all 12 parameters, so the description's brief mention of filter options does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. The description summarizes some filters but does not clarify edge cases or relationships not already in the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool lists GitLab to-do items for the authenticated user, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue or mark_todo_done. It also specifies the types of notifications included and mentions filtering capabilities.

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 context that the tool lists todos for the authenticated user, with filtering options. It implicitly guides usage for retrieving notifications, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_issues. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish from siblings.

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