Infer pytest test files likely impacted by changed files or symbols to run relevant tests and avoid unnecessary execution.
Infer pytest files likely impacted by changed files or symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). | |
| max_tests | No | Default 20. | |
| symbol_names | No | ||
| changed_files | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0v1.0.2v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the word 'likely', which usefully signals a heuristic, non-exhaustive result, but says nothing about how inference is computed or what the response contains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that states the action and the input sources immediately.
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 zero-required-parameter inference tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what'. It is slightly thin on how likely-impact is determined and what the returned list looks like, but the model's read-only, heuristic nature is fairly communicated.
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 50%: project and max_tests are documented in the schema while symbol_names and changed_files are not. The description names 'changed files or symbols', partially compensating for those two undocumented parameters, but adds no format, precedence, or interaction detail.
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?
Specific verb ('Infer') and resource ('pytest files likely impacted') make the operation unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling run_impacted_tests, which an agent must infer runs rather than finds the files.
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 phrase 'changed files or symbols' implies the intended trigger context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no reference to the closely related run_impacted_tests alternative. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.