find_tests

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

With no annotations, the description should detail behavior. It lists supported annotations and mentions output is a list of test classes with methods, but does not specify output format, pagination, or side effects like project traversal scope.

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, starting with purpose, then usage, output, supported frameworks, and a prerequisite. No redundant sentences, well-structured and 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?

Given no output schema, the description should detail return values. It only says 'List of test classes with their test methods', which is minimal. It covers prerequisites and supported annotations, but lacks detail on output structure for effective agent use.

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 baseline 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema; e.g., 'pattern' is only described as glob filter in schema, and 'includeDisabled' default is not reiterated. No added value.

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 that the tool finds test classes and methods, and lists supported frameworks (JUnit 4, 5, TestNG). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_references or find_implementations, which could also locate tests indirectly.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite (load_project required) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the niche purpose, the omission of explicit exclusions is acceptable but limits clarity.

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