find_tests_for_symbol

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses framework recognition and transitive depth behavior, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., loaded solution), or error handling for missing symbols.

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 sentences with no filler. First sentence front-loads primary purpose; second adds concrete details on frameworks and transitive behavior. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description omits return value format (e.g., list of test method names with locations). However, tool is simple with 3 well-described parameters; overall complete enough for its purpose.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds extra meaning: symbol format 'Type.Method', maxDepth clamping to [1,5] and default 3, transitive meaning 'walk through helper methods'. This provides clarity beyond schema.

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 lists test methods that exercise a given production symbol, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_references' by specifically targeting tests. It also mentions supported frameworks and optional transitive behavior.

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 explains when to use the tool (find tests for a symbol) and how to use the transitive option with maxDepth. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'find_references' or 'generate_test_skeleton'.

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