code_find_todos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only scan but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention limits like skipping node_modules or honoring .gitignore. It conveys the core operation but lacks detail on potential side effects or constraints.

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, tightly crafted sentence. It front-loads the action ('Scans the codebase') and then packs the target comment types and output information efficiently. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and the nature of the results (line numbers and file paths). It does not elaborate on output format, performance, or configuration details, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. It is reasonably complete.

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 fully describes the single parameter (targetDir) with its meaning and default behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which aligns with the baseline score of 3. The tool description itself does not mention the parameter at all, so no extra value is provided.

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 ('Scans'), names the resource ('the codebase'), and enumerates the exact comment types (TODO, FIXME, HACK, BUG) plus the deliverables (line numbers and file paths). This is precise and readily distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target entirely different concerns like security, docs, or API testing.

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 states what the tool does, so an agent can infer it is used when code comments need to be surfaced, but it provides no explicit usage context, exclusions, or guidance on when an alternative might be preferable. The 'when to use' is implied rather than stated.

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