Get tests

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description still adds real behavioral contract: no test execution, the id lifecycle ('stay the same when a test moves to another line, but change when its title, describe or file changes'), and that unknown ids surface in notFound rather than erroring. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and workflow lead, with the id rules and example trailing, so it is front-loaded correctly and reads in one pass. The long enumeration of returned fields (location, describe path, state, condition, reason, tags, annotations, comments, parameters, body hash) is partly redundant against the existing output schema, which costs it a point.

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?

With an output schema present, an annotations-covered safety profile, and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to carry purpose, workflow, and the id contract — all present. The one gap is guidance on when to override patterns/directory/framework versus accepting the server defaults.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the provenance and mutability rules for `ids` plus a concrete example call, and the 20-id ceiling phrased as a usage constraint. The optional patterns/directory/framework overrides are left entirely to the schema, which is why this is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (tests by id, with scan diagnostics), and explicitly frames it as static analysis ('read from the test files without running them'). The sibling set (find_tests, test_summary, scan_diagnostics) is addressed directly by naming the tools it follows, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing: 'Use it after find_tests or test_summary, for the details of up to 20 tests,' which tells the agent both the workflow position and the batch size limit. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g. prefer test_summary for bulk aggregate views), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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