find_todos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains the behavior: semantic search for relevant files, scanning for comments, showing recent commits. It also describes optional parameters and guardrails. However, it does not detail the output format, but this is somewhat mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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 somewhat lengthy with multiple paragraphs. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, but includes guardrails and alternatives that could be more concise. While structured, it could be tightened.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, guardrails, and parameter explanations. It differentiates from siblings and mentions output schema existence. Almost complete, but parameter details are slightly lacking.

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 description must compensate. It explains that vault_root, chroma_path, and repo_root are optional and can be omitted to use env vars. It also states query is required for semantic search. However, it does not describe n_files or chroma_path explicitly, and no parameter-level details are given. Partial compensation.

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 finds TODO/FIXME comments and recent git activity. It distinguishes from siblings like search_code by focusing on project progress and task management. The verb 'find' and resource 'todos' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: for project progress/task management questions with example queries (e.g., 'what's left to do'). It also advises against using vault_write unless explicitly requested, and suggests vault_append and vault_read as alternatives. This is excellent guidance.

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