list-todos

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

The readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are bound to the PAT-bound team, the todos:read scope is required, and the exact endpoint is disclosed. It does not describe pagination behavior or q-filter semantics, but these are secondary for a simple list 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential facts: what the tool does, who it applies to, the endpoint, and the auth scope. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 read-only list operation with fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps are the lack of detail on q search behavior and the return shape, but neither prevents an agent from selecting and invoking the tool 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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (q, page, itemsPerPage), including defaults and maximum. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.

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 specifies the operation ('List'), the resource ('to-dos'), and the scope ('for the PAT-bound team'), reinforced by the exact API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-todo, create-todo, update-todo, and delete-todo.

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 gives clear context: use it when you need to list to-dos for the caller's PAT-bound team, and the auth scope indicates a read-only operation. It does not explicitly contrast this with get-todo for single-item retrieval, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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