find_tests_for

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default search paths (tests/, spec/, __tests__/, etc.) and the fact that test_path_pattern replaces those defaults. The lower bar for annotations is met, with only minor extra behavioral detail (e.g., no-results behavior) omitted.

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 dense but efficient: two sentences cover the action, the resource, the path defaults, the replacement mechanism, the usage trigger, and the sibling contrasts. No redundant words or filler. It could be split into slightly clearer sentences, but every clause earns its place.

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, idempotent tool with 4 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers: the purpose, the default path behavior, the replacement semantics, when to use it, and the distinction from two siblings. It omits the output format, but given no output schema and the simple 'list' nature, the coverage is strong. The main gap is edge-case behavior (e.g., no tests found), but this is minor for the tool's complexity.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions), which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the conventional-path default behavior and how test_path_pattern substitutes for it, giving each parameter operational context (e.g., 'Omit when only one source applies' is reinforced by the tool's purpose). This pushes it above the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('tests that mention a symbol') with a clear scope (conventional test paths). It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings: 'describe_symbol returns the same tests bundled with the definition and the callers, and impact returns them for a whole blast radius.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from the alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it when the tests are all you want, before or after a change,' and contrasts it with describe_symbol and impact for the when-not cases. It also explains the test_path_pattern parameter's role ('replaces them for another layout'), giving concrete guidance on usage conditions.

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