get_untested_symbols

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

Discloses read-only nature, classification categories ('unreached', 'imported_not_called'), and default exclusions. Adds detail beyond annotations (which already mark readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, classification, defaults, alternative, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully specifies the return JSON structure. Covers all usage aspects, defaults, and sibling differentiation. Complete for a read-only list 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds context: explains that 'include_non_code' restores 'legacy noisy behaviour' and lists default languages. Goes beyond 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?

Clear verb 'Find' and resource 'ALL symbols lacking test coverage', distinguishes from sibling 'get_untested_exports' by specifying it covers all symbols (not just exports) and classifies them.

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?

Explicitly mentions default behavior (excludes non-code symbols) and provides alternative tool ('get_untested_exports') for exports-only scanning. Also explains when to use 'include_non_code' parameter.

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