新增待辦

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that tasks are created in open status and that duplicate open tasks with the same name are rejected, which is useful. However, it omits details like return value, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. It provides some but not comprehensive transparency.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the core action and two key behavioral constraints. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. It is perfectly sized for the information it covers, making it highly efficient.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what 'weight' and 'content' represent or how they affect the todo creation. It also doesn't describe expected outcomes (e.g., success/failure messages) or additional constraints. The duplicate-rejection behavior is mentioned but not elaborated. Overall, it leaves significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter meaning. It does not mention any of the three parameters (name, weight, content) or explain their semantics beyond the schema's type/default information. The description adds no value to parameter understanding, leaving the agent to infer meanings from the schema alone.

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: '新增待辦任務' (add a new todo task) with a specific resource. It also mentions the open status and duplicate rejection, which adds specificity beyond just the verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like todo_update or todo_list, though the action is distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't indicate when to prefer this over todo_update (which likely modifies todos) or how it relates to todo_list. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly communicated.

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