get_untested_exports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the return format (JSON structure) and the 'toon' output format for token efficiency, which are not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, sibling link, read-only note, return format, and format advice. No fluff.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, sibling alternative, read-only nature, and return structure for JSON. However, it does not describe the markdown or toon return formats explicitly (only mentions toon benefits). Since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. But overall, it provides sufficient context for a simple filter tool with two optional parameters.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (file_pattern and output_format). The description highlights the 'toon' format benefits and mentions the return structure, adding value beyond schema descriptions. File_pattern is adequately described in schema.

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 clearly states the tool finds exported public symbols without matching test files, i.e., test coverage gaps. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_untested_symbols which covers non-exported symbols. The verb 'Find' and resource 'exported public symbols' are specific.

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 says when to use this tool (test coverage gaps for exports) and directs to get_untested_symbols for deeper analysis including non-exported symbols. It also notes that the tool is read-only, providing clear guidance on usage context.

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