review_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool is non-executing and read-only in effect, which is valuable safety context, but says nothing about required permissions, whether results are paginated, or what a 'no tests found' outcome looks like beyond the passing mention.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is a useful scope boundary rather than padding, though the 'identify when none are found' clause is slightly redundant with the discovery verb.

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 search tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical calling information: what 'path' scopes, how limit/offset paginate results, and what the tool returns. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently or correctly for large repositories.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The meaning of 'path' (root to search?), and especially 'limit'/'offset' as pagination controls with their defaults and caps, is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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: discovering test files. The negative clause ('Does not run project tests, install packages, or execute scripts') helps distinguish it from action-oriented siblings like analyze_code. However, it does not distinguish itself from scan_project, which plausibly also discovers files, and 'identify when none are found' is an awkward restatement of returning an empty result.

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 supplies negative guidance (does not run tests, install packages, or execute scripts), which usefully rules out misrouting. But it never states when to prefer this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling to use instead for adjacent tasks.

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