timps_tech_debt_quantifier

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full transparency burden. It only states it scans and returns a plan, without disclosing read-only nature, permission requirements, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a potential analysis 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 short sentences, efficiently stating the core action and output. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 tool has no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'prioritised debt repayment plan' includes or how it is formatted. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a valid repo path) or any limitations, leaving the tool under-specified for its complexity.

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 one parameter (repo_path) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose and constraints completely unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states it scans for TODO/FIXME density, cyclomatic complexity hotspots, and deprecated patterns, and returns a prioritised repayment plan. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like timps_technical_debt, which likely overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like timps_technical_debt or timps_full_checkup. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.

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