Todo Comments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the requirement to provide the descriptors array, but this is already present in the schema. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authorization needs) are disclosed beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences (approximately 35 words) with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and return value (location and text), it lacks details on the output format. Since no output schema is provided, a more precise description of the return structure (e.g., fields like line, column, text) would enhance 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 baseline is 3. The description only repeats the requirement for the descriptors array without adding new meaning or usage context that isn't already in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource as 'TODO, FIXME, HACK, and other configured comment markers in a file'. It also states the return value (location and text), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from its siblings, which are mostly TypeScript IDE features.

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 usage when comment markers need to be found in a file, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given, and no similar tools are compared.

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