find_tests_for_change

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without revealing how tests are determined (e.g., static analysis, historical data) or any limitations (e.g., may not be exhaustive). No side effects or dependencies are mentioned, making it insufficiently transparent.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and context efficiently.

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 hint at return format or structure. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., file paths, test names, ranking). Additionally, sibling tools like recommend_validation_plan suggest a more comprehensive scope, but this tool's boundaries are not clarified.

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?

The input schema provides full coverage with descriptions for both parameters (path and limit). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's definitions, so a baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: analyzing a file path to identify test files for validating changes. It uses specific verbs (analyze, identify) and resource (test files), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like impact_analysis or recommend_validation_plan by focusing solely on test file retrieval.

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 needing test files for a changed file, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like recommend_validation_plan or impact_analysis. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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