detect_incomplete_implementations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states what it scans for (comments, empty methods, placeholders), but does not disclose the output format, recursion behavior, or any performance implications. Overall, it's fairly transparent for a detection 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key actions and targets. No wasted words; every part of the sentence is informative.

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 simple detection tool with one well-described parameter, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by noting the output format (e.g., list of issues with locations) since no output schema is provided. Still, it covers the main functionality.

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 100% and the schema already describes the single parameter 'path' as 'Absolute path to the plugin root'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so baseline 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 specifies exactly what the tool detects: TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX comments, empty method bodies, and placeholder returns. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on generation, scaffolding, or overall project inspection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_file' or 'search_in_project'. The description implies it is for finding incomplete implementations in plugin code, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparison with similar tools.

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