get_affected_tests

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it automatically runs git diff including uncommitted changes, analyzes which tests are affected, returns sorted FQNs, and appends a note for non-Kotlin changes. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical operational detail without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, how it works (git diff), what it returns (sorted FQNs), and edge-case behavior (notes for non-Kotlin changes). No output schema exists, but the return value is described adequately.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the description neither adds nor detracts from schema information. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a clear verb-object phrase 'Get tests affected by code changes' and elaborates with specific details about running git diff and analyzing tests, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implicitly guides usage by mentioning that it runs git diff on uncommitted changes and returns sorted FQNs. It also provides a note about when to consider running the full test suite (for changes outside Kotlin sources), which serves as an implicit usage guideline.

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