Find which test files exercise a symbol by tracing imports. Empty results mean no test imports it, signaling a coverage gap.
Which test files exercise a symbol, derived from a test file importing it or its module. Empty means no test imports it — a finding, not an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Node id `<relpath>#<sym>`, label, or free text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Empty means no test imports it — a finding, not an error.' This clarifies an expected edge case that the annotation doesn't convey, adding value beyond structured data.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that explains the purpose and the key behavioral nuance (empty result meaning). No wasted words, perfectly concise for the complexity level.
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?
For a read-only graph query with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, how to interpret the result, and the safety profile (via annotation). Nothing essential is missing.
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 the symbol parameter documented as 'Node id `<relpath>#<sym>`, label, or free text.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond that. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Which test files exercise a symbol' – clearly a query about test coverage. It distinguishes itself from sibling graph tools (graph_dead, graph_impact, graph_path) by focusing on test files and symbol imports, so an agent can tell them apart.
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 implies the usage context (checking test coverage of a symbol) and provides clear context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like graph_path or graph_impact, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection among the graph_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.