differentiate_type_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so effectively by explaining the classification criteria: a test is skippable when the changed file contains only TypeScript type declarations or is imported via `import type`. It does not detail side effects or limitations, but for an analytical tool, this is substantial transparency.

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 exactly three sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains the skippability criteria, and the third gives a usage example. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it decides, and when to use it. It does not explicitly describe the format of the returned test split, but that is implied. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context on how changed_files are processed but does not add new parameter-specific semantics (e.g., format constraints or examples). It does not degrade the understanding, but it does not elevate it beyond the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Classifies each changed file as type-only or runtime, then splits affected tests.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_affected_tests by focusing on type-only vs runtime impact. The scope is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides an explicit usage prompt: 'Use to answer: which tests can I skip after a type-only refactor?' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it (e.g., for runtime changes), so it stops short of a full 5.

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