find_todos

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool scans the entire repo, ranks by age, and returns top items. Also imposes an agent-side rule to not list items in chat. However, it does not detail any side effects, permissions, or output format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description is longer but front-loaded with the critical instruction, and every sentence serves a purpose. The all-caps emphasis and workflow steps are somewhat verbose but structurally justified.

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 scan tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns and the expected follow-up, but lacks specifics on return structure or alternative tools. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to execute, though not exhaustive.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 params with descriptions, so description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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?

States it finds TODOs, FIXMEs, BUGs, and priorities by scanning the repo, ranking by age, and returning highest priority items. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like resolve_todo and search_todos by claiming to be the primary tool.

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 instructs the agent to ALWAYS use this tool for finding tech debt, and outlines a mandatory follow-up workflow (create artifact, request feedback). Does not mention when to use alternatives like scan_todos_raw, but the directive is clear.

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