todo_finder

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, return format, or whether it scans the entire input. The minimal description leaves significant uncertainty about how the tool operates.

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 concise, with two sentences covering purpose and parameter. However, mixing parameter documentation into the main description instead of using the schema's description field makes it slightly less structured. Overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one input string) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain behavior like scanning logic or edge cases, missing opportunities to fully inform the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'code' parameter, but the description adds a brief explanation ('Source code to scan for TODO/fixme comments'). This provides basic context beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it lacks details like character limits or encoding.

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 tool finds TODO, FIXME, HACK, NOTE, XXX comments in source code, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling code analysis tools like code_stats or code_complexity by focusing on comment markers.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for scanning code comments but does not mention when to avoid it or compare with similar tools like search or analysis functions.

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