search_todos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that searches are fuzzy and intent-based, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a moderate gap for a search 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 concise with two sentences: a critical instruction and a clear behavior statement. The all-caps 'CRITICAL INSTRUCTION' is slightly emphatic but not wasteful; the text is well structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and limitations. It mentions fuzzy/intent matching but does not describe result format, error behavior, or performance, leaving the context partially incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters (cwd, query, directory_filter) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it matches the baseline for full 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?

The description clearly states it searches for specific TODOs, FIXMEs, or BUGs using fuzzy matching by intent. It explicitly says to use this instead of generic Search or grep_search, distinguishing it from generic alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS use this tool instead of generic Search or grep_search when looking for a specific TODO, FIXME, or BUG.' However, it does not mention when to use sibling tools like find_todos or scan_todos_raw, so it lacks a complete exclusionary set.

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