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. It discloses three search strategies and confidence-based ranking, which provides good insight into its behavior. However, it does not specify edge cases like missing results or performance, leaving minor gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does and how it works. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find test functions associated with a symbol' and details the search methods (naming convention, direct reference, file convention) and result ranking by confidence. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_symbol or find_references.

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 the tool should be used to find tests for a symbol, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or contrast with sibling tools.

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