list_tests

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

The description discloses recursive directory search, pattern filtering, and output of structured file info. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately conveys read-only exploration behavior without side effects, though it could explicitly state no modifications occur.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement and a separate usage section. It is concise but not overly terse; every sentence adds value, though the 'USE WHEN' repetition slightly reduces tightness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage criteria, patterns, and prerequisites. However, it lacks explicit output format details and error handling, which would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'path' with a comprehensive description covering relative/absolute paths and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 discovers and catalogs test files across the project, supporting patterns like .test.* and .spec.*. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_tests and analyze_coverage by focusing on exploration rather than execution or analysis.

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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' guidance, listing specific user queries like 'what tests exist' and contexts. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires set_project_root to be called first'), which helps prevent misuse.

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