affected_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose 'Read-only' and the default exclusion of type-only edges, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about truncation or response-budget behavior despite max_bytes governing that, nor about the shape/ordering of results, which are the main behavioral risks here.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler, and the core behavior is stated first. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have said what the response looks like (a list of test paths) and what happens when the byte budget is exceeded. For a moderate-complexity query with fully documented params, it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the max_bytes default/max and the workspace discovery rule. The description only restates the include_type_only default, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a precise resource and scope: test files that transitively depend on changed files, with a default exclusion of type-only edges. An agent can tell this is a dependency-query tool rather than a mutation or status tool. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like impact or reaches, which also sound dependency-related.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers 'call this after a change to find which tests to run.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling tools (impact, reaches, focus) that could be confused with it.

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