Find Untested Exports

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining the ranking logic and which exports are prioritized. This enhances the agent's understanding of the tool's output and purpose, though it does not disclose details like execution time or edge cases.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the ranking detail is appended in a compact, actionable way. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: it specifies the input (repository root), the output behavior (ranked untested exports), and the ranking criteria. Nothing essential is missing.

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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter with a clear description ('Absolute path to the repository root'), and the tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 a specific verb ('Find'), a precise resource ('every exported symbol with no reference in any test file'), and a distinguishing feature ('ranked by risk'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like test_coverage, dead_exports, and gap_analysis, which likely address broader or different concerns.

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 when to use the tool: to identify untested exports with priority given to risky categories (async, security-adjacent, API-layer). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast it with specific alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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