pytest_collect

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds the valuable behavioral guarantee that tests are collected but not executed. With annotations present, this level of added context is sufficient; it could additionally mention module import side effects, but that is not essential.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the key non-execution detail. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety, so the brief description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves the meaning and defaults of both optional parameters unexplained, which is a clear gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for 'paths' or 'changed_only'. The property names give some clue, but 'changed_only' in particular is ambiguous and the description does not clarify how either parameter modulates collection.

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 states a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('pytest tests'), and adds the key scoping detail 'without executing them'. This clearly distinguishes it from test-running tools and from the sibling static-check tools.

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 phrase 'without executing them' implies the tool is for discovery/inspection rather than running tests, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or name any explicit exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not spelled out.

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