active_todos

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a pure regex scan with no index, implying potential performance characteristics, and it prioritizes results based on current_files. This adds useful context beyond a simple 'scan' statement, though it does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or describe exact output behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences that each add value: purpose, method, and usage tip. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no redundant or unnecessary words.

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, the description is mostly complete: it conveys purpose, method, and usage guidance, while the schema fully documents parameters. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return format or ordering, but the tool name and purpose strongly imply a list of TODOs, so it remains adequate.

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 three parameters described in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing current_files ('Pass current_files to boost'), which is already captured in the schema. The description does not introduce new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('Scan TODO/FIXME/XXX/HACK') and its purpose ('prioritize by current work'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like code_quality or code_review, which focus on broader analysis rather than TODO scanning.

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 provides clear context by explaining the tool's lightweight nature ('Pure regex, no index') and suggests boosting via current_files. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions. Still, the usage context is clear for a TODO scanner.

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