find_impacted_test_files

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only gives a high-level purpose. It does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it runs synchronously, requires project context, or how impact is computed.

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 one concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema and behavioral details, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected output, especially with four parameters.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds context for 'changed_files' and 'symbol_names' by linking them to the tool's purpose. However, it does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb 'infer' and the resource 'pytest files likely impacted by changed files or symbols,' distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_impacted_tests' which executes tests.

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 usage when analyzing test impact but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_impacted_tests, and no exclusions.

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