find_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the bidirectional behavior based on input type, which is transparent. No destructive or performance implications are mentioned, but for a query tool this is adequate.

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 sentences with clear structure: first defines purpose, second adds usage context. No redundant words. Highly front-loaded and efficient.

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 only one parameter and an output schema (not shown but indicated as present), the description covers usage and behavior sufficiently. It lacks details on error conditions but is complete for a simple mapping tool.

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 100% coverage with a description for 'target'. The tool's description adds value by detailing the output based on target type (e.g., 'test_* functions', 'modules/symbols'), going beyond the schema's brief note.

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 'map' and clearly distinguishes two modes: symbol to tests and test file to symbols. It is not a tautology and effectively communicates the core function.

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 provides explicit context: 'Use before changing code to know what to run.' This tells when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools list implies differentiation.

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