get-todo

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and the OAuth scope 'todos:read', which is useful authentication context beyond the structured annotation. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., 404 for missing to-do) or response format, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then packs the endpoint and scope into parentheses. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description covers the key invocation details: the endpoint, the scope, and the operation. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the return value shape or error behavior, but since there is no output schema and the tool's purpose is highly idiomatic, this is a minor omission. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the id parameter already has a clear description ('To-do id.'). The tool description only says 'by id', which adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Fetch a to-do by id') and the resource, making it unambiguous. It also includes the HTTP method and path, and the required scope, which further pins down the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-todos without needing to open schemas.

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 phrase 'by id' implies it is for retrieving a single to-do when you have its identifier, which implicitly contrasts with list-todos. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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