thetacog-todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses storage (SQLite) and sync behavior (to state.json for HTML display), which adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe side effects like persistence guarantees or the immediate nature of mutations, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and actions. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with six parameters and four actions, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values (e.g., what 'list' returns) or provide examples. Sibling context is not leveraged to clarify when this tool is needed. More detail about expected outputs and behavior would improve completeness.

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 each parameter adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 tool manages todos for a room and explicitly lists all four actions (add, list, update, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like thetacog-detect or thetacog-export, which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used for todo management but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also fails to mention alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the action list alone.

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