Find Untested Functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-only scanning action, but it omits important behaviors such as how 'corresponding test file' is defined (e.g., naming convention, directory structure) and whether it actually parses code or just checks file existence. This leaves room for misinterpretation in edge cases.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the criterion for identification. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary verb 'Scan.' This is a model of conciseness—no unnecessary detail or 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must convey the tool's full operational context. It states the high-level action but does not specify what qualifies as a 'corresponding test file,' nor does it describe the return format. For a tool of this simplicity, the description is adequate but leaves some operational nuances ambiguous.

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% with each parameter clearly documented (source_dir, test_dir, extensions). However, the tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. Per rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not exceed this.

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: 'Scan source files for function/method declarations and identify those with no corresponding test file.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from sibling tools like suggest_test_cases (which generates tests) and analyze_test_coverage (which measures coverage), making its unique purpose distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or point to any sibling tools for other tasks. Without this context, an agent has no explicit direction on when to select this over other test-related tools, leaving usage unclear.

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