get_code_smells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is found, but does not describe return format, scanning behavior (e.g., recursive traversal, respect for ignore_patterns, include_hidden), or any side effects. Since there is no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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, focused sentence. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to the purpose.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only states the purpose. It does not clarify what the result looks like (e.g., a list of matches with file paths), how limits and depth affect scanning, or what 'include_text' returns. This makes the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds minimal value by referencing specific smell types that map to the 'types' parameter, but it does not explain parameter syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 exactly what the tool does: it finds TODO/FIXME/HACK/BUG markers and unsafe casts. The verb 'Finds' is specific, the resource (code smells) is clear, and listing marker types distinguishes it from siblings like get_line_counts or get_functions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are different in purpose, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, not stated.

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