lupa_list_test_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool does not run tests or start Vite/Playwright, indicating it is non-destructive and read-only. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like error handling or performance characteristics.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behavior. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is included.

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 having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value (e.g., list of file paths) or behavior with the configPath requirement. It lacks crucial context for a tool with moderate 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 coverage is 100%, so the description's role in parameter semantics is minimal. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'List test files resolved by Lupa config' and explicitly distinguishes from running tests or starting Vite/Playwright. It differentiates from sibling tools like lupa_run_tests and lupa_list_tests by specifying it's a dry-run listing.

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 implies usage when you want to preview test files without execution, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., lupa_list_tests). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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