get_tests_for_file

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

Discloses static nature and absence of test execution. Details language-specific patterns. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not mention error behavior or return format, but covers core behavior well.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful. Front-loaded with core purpose, then details. No redundant or irrelevant content. Efficiently communicates all necessary information.

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?

Covers input and behavior well with language-specific details. Missing explicit return format description (likely list of file paths), but without an output schema, this is a minor gap. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Single parameter 'file_path' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description defines it as the source file path, fully compensating for schema gap. Adds clear meaning beyond the type-only schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds test files for a given source file path. Specifies static lookup with no test execution. Language-specific patterns differentiate it from siblings like run_tests and detect_lsp_servers.

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?

Explicitly notes start_lsp is not required. Implies use when static test file discovery is needed, but does not explicitly advise against using when test execution or dynamic analysis is required. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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