find_test_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanism ('by imports') and the two outputs (mapping and untested modules), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether the project must be loaded first, or what the exact return format is. This is moderate transparency.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a secondary behavior without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core behavior and the two types of results (mapping and untested modules), but it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns an object, array, or file paths). Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail about the return structure, making this incomplete but not severely so.

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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 the tool's function with specific verb 'maps' and resource 'production modules (src/) to their tests (.test./.spec.)' along with the method 'by imports'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by highlighting the test-mapping scope and the additional behavior of listing modules without tests.

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 provides clear context about when this tool is relevant: when you need to understand the relationship between source modules and their tests, and identify untested modules. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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