find_todos

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses basic behavior (scan, return list of matches) and parameters, but omits details like recursion depth, file type filtering, or performance implications. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 very concise—only 5 lines including Args/Returns. Every sentence adds information. The structure with Args and Returns clearly separates parameter and outcome details. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return format, but it does anyway. It covers basic usage and returns. However, it does not specify whether all file types are searched or if hidden files are included, leaving some gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for both 'path' (Filesystem path to the repo root) and 'max_results' (cap on matches, default 100). This adds value beyond type/default, though explanations are 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 scans a repo for TODO/FIXME/HACK/XXX comments. The verb 'scan' and specific resource 'repo' are unambiguous. Sibling tools like find_large_files and git_log_summary handle different tasks, so differentiation is clear.

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 use when wanting to find code comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use or which sibling tool might be appropriate for other tasks.

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