tests_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so meaningfully: read-through the recorded source tree, uses exact rather than fuzzy matching, and returns complementary assertion evidence. It does not mention edge-case behavior such as missing symbols or pagination, but the core behavior is 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 two deliberate sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides useful contextual behavior instead of restating the name or schema.

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 explains the tool's source ('recorded source tree'), scope ('test/spec files'), matching semantics ('exact references'), and output emphasis ('nearby assertion evidence'). Since there is no output schema, some output detail is not specified, but the essential invocation context is present enough for a tool of this simplicity.

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 low at 25%, and the description does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented limit, offset, and format parameters beyond what their names and defaults already suggest. The description clarifies the symbol parameter through 'exact references to a symbol', but the other parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 names a specific action and scope: 'Find exact references to a symbol in test/spec files'. The contrast with the production graph in the second sentence helps distinguish it from graph-oriented siblings like callers, callees, or sources_of. It also signals that assertion evidence is included, which clarifies the tool's specific 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 phrase 'Reads the recorded source tree because tests are normally excluded from the production graph' gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools to use for production-graph references, but the intent is still clear.

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