list_todos

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating it is read-only, does not mutate data, and that errors (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits) are returned as errors. This expands on the annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece: purpose, alternative usage, behavioral guarantees, and parameter guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 an 8-parameter optional-tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, error behavior, and parameter format. It implies a list return value and mentions pagination. Combined with 100% schema coverage and readable annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds guidance on passing project_id or group_id (numeric ID or URL-encoded path) and instructs to use pagination fields exactly as documented. This clarifies parameter format beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 ('List GitLab to-do items for the current user') and the resource (to-dos). It explicitly distinguishes from 'get' tools, saying to use those for a single known resource, which differentiates it from the many sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for a collection of resources and to use the corresponding get tool when you know a single resource. This gives clear selection criteria relative to siblings. It also mentions error conditions and parameter usage, covering when and how to invoke it.

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