find_related_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires repository permissions, how many test paths come back, or how the mapping is derived. Only the output schema (if consulted) would fill the return-value gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a three-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing about input meaning, the PR-based context, and read-only behavior — significant gaps it should have closed.

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 0% across three required parameters (owner, repo, number), so the schema gives no hint what they mean. The description only loosely implies that "changed files" are derived from the referenced PR; it does not document owner/repo as repository identity or number as the pull request identifier.

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 has a clear verb ("Find") and resource ("test paths related to changed files"), so the general intent is legible. However, it never says where the "changed files" come from — an agent must infer from the owner/repo/number parameters that this operates on a pull request, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_pull_request_files or get_pull_request_diff.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pull_request_files or get_pull_request_diff, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a PR number that exists). Usage is left entirely to inference.

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