resolve_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects (verification and streak increment) but omits important details like whether the file is modified in-place, what happens if the TODO isn't found, or any permission requirements. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes two important behavioral notes. Every word earns its place; no wasted or redundant information.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to explain return values and failure modes, which it doesn't. It captures the core behavior but misses edge cases (e.g., TODO not found) and the relationship between 'TODO' and the type enum. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 50%, with file described as 'File path to verify' and type having only an enum. The description does not explain the enum values or how they map to different todo types; it only says 'TODO' generically, which could mislead since type supports FIXME, BUG, etc. This narrows the tool's scope and doesn't clarify parameter semantics.

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 (mark as resolved), the resource (TODO), and additional behavior (verification and streak increment). This distinguishes it from sibling read/search tools (find_todos, scan_todos_raw, search_todos) which focus on listing or searching.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to resolve a TODO) and the contrast with sibling search tools is evident from context. However, there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar.

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