todoist_get_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it supports pagination (via cursor and limit) and optional project filtering. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of sections with fields). This leaves gaps for a read operation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all sections, or sections for a specific project') and adds key context ('Supports pagination') without any waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination support but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the response structure, but it doesn't, leaving room for improvement.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (projectId, cursor, limit) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that projectId filters sections and pagination is supported, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('sections'), specifying scope ('all sections, or sections for a specific project'). It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_get_projects (which gets projects) and todoist_get_tasks (which gets tasks), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other section-related tools like todoist_create_section or todoist_update_section, which is why it's not a 5.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'sections for a specific project' and 'pagination,' suggesting when to use it (e.g., for filtered or paginated retrieval). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like todoist_get_projects for project data or todoist_search_tasks for task-based queries, and no exclusions are provided.

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