待辦清單

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 states the tool lists todos but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. Since 'list' implies a read operation, the agent can infer safety, but explicit behavioral disclosure is missing.

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, containing only two short clauses. The core action ('列待辦') is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is efficiently packed. There is no wasted text.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential functional aspects: listing with optional filtering. It does not mention return format or pagination, but for a basic list tool this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent 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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior when status is omitted ('省略則全部'). It clarifies that status accepts 'open' or 'done' and specifies the all-case. This is a meaningful addition to the bare enum definition, despite being brief.

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 lists todos ('列待辦'), which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like todo_add and todo_update, though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 explains the optional status parameter and that omitting it returns all todos. However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as todo_add or todo_update. Usage is somewhat implied by the listing action, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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