find_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 only says 'Search' without explaining recursion behavior, file traversal depth, case sensitivity, or whether it respects ignore files. The presence of an output schema is not disclosed in the description, and the description adds no context about side effects or read-only guarantees.

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 communicates the tool's purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to scan. There is zero waste.

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 a simple purpose, an output schema, and fully described parameters, so core invocation is well covered. However, the description does not mention behavioral details such as recursive scanning or sorting, which could be relevant for a search tool. Given the simple nature, it is adequate but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (path, tags, extensions, max_results) clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It earns the baseline score of 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Search') and the resource ('TODO/FIXME/HACK and similar tags in source files'), making the purpose unambiguous. It inherently distinguishes itself from general-purpose search tools like search_files, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for finding code markers in source files. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_files, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is functional but not explicit.

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