find_todo_fixme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only states that markers are in comments (pending debt), but does not disclose read-only behavior, return format, or that it searches across the loaded project. The behavioral detail is marginally beyond the tool's name.

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 extremely short, using just a few words, and is front-loaded with the key markers. It is appropriately sized for a simple find tool, though the brevity sacrifices substantive guidance.

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 simple nature and the parameter schema, the description is partially complete. It does not mention what the tool returns or how the search is scoped within the loaded project, leaving moderate gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 parameter 'name' is well-described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project.' The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies per the rubric.

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 names specific markers (TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX) and states they are in comments, which clearly implies a tool for finding technical-debt markers. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' and does not mention that it operates on the loaded project, so the purpose is clear but not fully articulated.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_source or find_any_usages. The description gives no contextual cues for tool selection, leaving the agent to rely on the name alone.

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