scan_todos_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It only restates the purpose ('returns the full unranked list') without detailing output format, potential performance implications, or why it's marked internal. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 one short sentence with no filler. The 'Internal/manual use' prefix is a useful, concise qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, but there is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what the list contains (file paths, line numbers, snippets) or how directory_filter affects the result. For an internal/debugging tool, an agent would likely need more detail to use it correctly. Completeness is insufficient.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond implying the result is 'full' and 'unranked', which may hint at directory_filter behavior but is ambiguous. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('returns'), resource ('full unranked list of TODOs in a repo'), and scope ('in a repo'). The term 'full unranked' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_todos or find_todos, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 prefix 'Internal/manual use' provides clear context that this tool is not intended for normal AI workflows, implying it should be used sparingly or for debugging. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives, the manual/internal tag effectively communicates when to avoid using it.

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