predict_test_failures

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the core action without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what data it relies on, what output format to expect, or any limitations. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without important contextual cues.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is thin. It communicates the essential purpose, but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of test names) or provide operational boundaries. It is minimally complete for selection but not fully adequate for invocation without further inference.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for the parameter file_paths (0% coverage). The description adds semantic value by indicating these are 'edited files', clarifying the parameter's intent. However, it does not specify path format, file existence requirements, or other constraints that would be useful.

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 uses a specific verb 'Surface' with a clear resource ('tests likely to fail') and a scope condition ('given a set of edited files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like predict_regression and get_related_bugs, which address different aspects of change impact.

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 'given a set of edited files' implies the primary use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks guidance on how to compare with similar tools like predict_regression.

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