get_todo_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and reveals the key output behavior: a 0-100 score, a grade, and hotspot files. It also implies a read-only operation through 'Get' and clarifies the scoring criteria, though it does not disclose exact grade thresholds or output formatting.

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 two focused sentences with the primary purpose and scoring basis front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds the hotspot file output without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter scoring tool, the description is adequately complete: it defines the score range, grading basis, and output features. It lacks exact grade thresholds and a formal output schema, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 documents the only parameter ('path') with 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no extra detail about path format, recursion, or supported file types beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('technical debt health score'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact markers (TODO/FIXME/HACK) and the scoring basis (density and severity). It also notes the additional output of hotspot files, making its scope unambiguous.

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 it should be used when a quantitative health score is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like scan_todos or get_hotspot_score. There is no 'when to use this instead of...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name and context.

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