coverage_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: it states the external dependency ('coverage' installed in the project's interpreter, with the error naming it), and that coverage data goes to a temp dir and nothing is written into the project. It omits runtime cost and side effects of actually executing the test suite (the 600s default timeout hints at this but is not explained).

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 output shape and dependency requirement are front-loaded, followed by per-parameter notes. Prose is tight with no filler; the only weakness is that the parameter notes are not labeled for the two undocumented parameters, so the reader cannot tell whether they are intentionally omitted.

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, and the description covers the key dependency and write-safety behavior. But for a six-parameter test-execution tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving four parameters (including python, runner, and timeout) unexplained means an agent cannot confidently control the run.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains two of six parameters well -- 'files' (formats and globs, plus the surprising default of 30 least-covered files) and 'selector' (partial suite). 'path', 'python', 'runner', and 'timeout' receive no explanation at all, leaving a substantial gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: run Python tests under coverage.py and report per-file percent plus uncovered line ranges, with an example format ('12-15, 20'). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling run_tests, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Python projects only' and by the selector note ('run only part of the suite'), and the default behavior (30 least-covered files plus total percent) tells the agent what happens if it omits files. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs run_tests / rerun_failed guidance, which matters given six sibling tools in the same suite.

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