debt_scan_todos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only scan, but does not state whether it modifies files, what it returns, whether recursion is used, or when an api_key is required for Pro/Enterprise scans.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action 'Scan codebase' and directly enumerating the markers. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the scan produces or any behavioral caveats such as Pro/Enterprise key requirements. For an agent deciding whether to invoke this and interpret results, the description is 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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the semantic context of scanning for debt markers, which modestly relates to the directory parameter but adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it scans a codebase for TODO, FIXME, HACK, and other debt markers. This clearly distinguishes it from related debt siblings like debt_prioritize or debt_generate_report at a basic level, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies usage through the verb 'scan' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer that this tool is for discovering debt markers rather than prioritizing or reporting them.

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