get_tests_for_file

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: static lookup, no test execution, no requirement for start_lsp. Provides per-language patterns. Does not cover error handling or return format, but overall 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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Language patterns are listed concisely. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 purpose, behavior, and language patterns. Lacks specification of return format (e.g., absolute paths, list of strings) which would be helpful given no output schema. Acceptable for a simple lookup tool but incomplete for full contextual guidance.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description clearly explains the 'file_path' parameter and gives language-specific examples, adding significant meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 that it returns test files for a given source file path, with specific language patterns. Differentiates from sibling 'run_tests' by emphasizing static lookup without execution.

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 static lookup and no test execution, hinting that 'run_tests' is the alternative for execution. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list direct alternatives.

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