find_todos

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

With no annotations at all, the description bears the full burden; it does disclose the key trait that indexing is unnecessary and that results include file locations. It does not state read-only semantics, any size/truncation behavior on large codebases, or scope limits (e.g., whether vendored/generated dirs are skipped).

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?

Front-loaded single sentence states the behavior, followed by tight Args/Returns blocks. Every line earns its place; the only minor waste is the Returns block partially duplicating the output schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the scan behavior, the non-indexing prerequisite, the parameter semantics, and the shape of results. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that tag is an optional filter, giving concrete examples ('TODO', 'FIXME'), and defining the null case as all tags.

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 ('scans') and resource ('codebase') plus the exact set of markers searched (TODO, FIXME, HACK, BUG, XXX). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like search_codebase or query, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Does NOT require indexing' gives an important contextual cue that this can be run before/without index_codebase, which is useful selection signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for broader comment or text search.

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