find_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says nothing about whether this is read-only, what side effects might occur, return formatting, or the key behavioral trait that 'widget tests are preferred' and how that affects results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the primary purpose (find tests) and adds the widget-preference qualifier concisely. Appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be slightly more informative within the same footprint.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-equipped. It doesn't explain the return value shape, pagination, the 'preferred' behavior for widget tests, or how the undocumented 'limit'/'repository' parameters interact. More behavioral detail is needed given the absence of structured metadata.

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 50% — schema already describes 'symbol' and 'widgetTestsOnly', but not 'limit' or 'repository'. The description mentions widget preference (relating to widgetTestsOnly) and the symbol relationship, but adds no meaning for the undocumented 'limit' and 'repository' parameters. This doesn't compensate for the 50% coverage gap, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 states 'Find tests related to a symbol' with a clear verb+resource relationship. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like find_best_practice or search_source clearly, and the qualifier 'widget tests are preferred when available' adds moderate specificity but doesn't clarify what 'preferred' means or what kinds of tests are returned.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_source or find_examples. The description implies test-finding context but gives no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use guidance, even though sibling tools like analyze_testing could overlap.

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