browser_get_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'start collecting' but doesn't disclose side effects, whether it clears previous coverage, what the return value is, or how it interacts with browser_stop_coverage. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely short, but conciseness should not come at the expense of essential information. It is under-specified and fails to explain the tool's actual behavior or output, making it more of an underspecified placeholder than a useful description.

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, no annotations, and a misleading description, the tool is incompletely specified. The description doesn't state what the tool returns, what side effects it has, or how it fits into the coverage lifecycle, so the agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them trivially. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed, so the baseline of 4 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 '开始收集代码覆盖率' (start collecting code coverage) states an action but conflicts with the tool name 'get_coverage', which implies retrieval. It doesn't clarify whether this tool starts coverage collection or returns collected data, and it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like browser_stop_coverage.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, expected sequence (e.g., start before stop), or relationships to sibling tools.

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