suggest_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that suggestions are derived from imports and syntax and are 'candidate' (i.e., advisory, not written), but says nothing about how many suggestions come back, cost, or how max_tokens constrains output.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional modifiers trailing, which matches the required-vs-optional split. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the files input and the token budget but does neither. An agent cannot confidently assemble a call from this definition alone.

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 coverage is only 20% — just 'workspace' is documented. The description hints at symbol_name and task_hint, but files (what paths? source files? test files?), the 2000-default/32000-max max_tokens budget, and workspace's meaning beyond the schema line are all left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('suggest candidate tests') plus the basis for suggestions (imports and syntax) and the optional narrowing axes (symbol, task). An agent can tell this apart from all listed siblings, none of which deal with test generation, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

'optionally focus on a symbol and task' implies when symbol_name and task_hint are worth supplying, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do when the caller has no symbol in mind.

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