explain_todo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool retrieves context and code lines, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, exact return structure, or any side effects. The description is not misleading, but lacks depth expected without annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and what is included. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return value (context and surrounding code lines). It could specify what 'context' entails, but it is complete enough for the tool's straightforward scope.

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 already documents both parameters (id and contextLines) with full descriptions. The description's mention of 'surrounding code lines' reinforces contextLines but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb (Get) and identifies the resource (specific TODO item) and the output (surrounding code lines). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like scan_todos, which likely lists items, by focusing on a single item's context.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need more context for a specific TODO item. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the distinct purpose among siblings provides sufficient guidance.

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