更新待辦

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists the three actions without explaining side effects (e.g., whether 'remove' is permanent, whether 'done' affects lists, reversibility, or permission requirements). The description is minimal and does not convey any consequences or safety implications of the mutations.

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—a single sentence with the essential actions and id flexibility. It's well-structured and front-loaded, but it could include slightly more context without becoming verbose. The brevity is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the actions and id flexibility but omits behavioral details like return value, side effects, and error conditions. It's adequate for a simple operation but leaves gaps that the agent might need to know, especially regarding mutating actions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value by stating that 'id' accepts either an id or a name, which goes beyond the schema's generic string type. However, the 'action' parameter is only covered by the enum, which is self-explanatory; the description doesn't clarify any nuances about the actions beyond their labels.

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 supported actions (done, reopen, remove) and implies the target resource (a todo item via 'id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like todo_add and todo_list by showing it mutates an existing todo. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource as a 'todo' in the description, relying on the title, and doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing todo id, or scenarios where todo_add would be more appropriate. The only usage hint is the id flexibility ('accepts id or name'), which is parameter-oriented rather than usage-oriented.

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