coverage_summary

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

The description labels the tool as [READ] indicating it is a read operation, and lists framework options. However, it fails to describe the output format or what 'coverage' entails, lacking detail on behavioral aspects beyond the basic read nature.

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 concise and includes a structured 'Args' section. It front-loads the purpose with [READ] and avoids extraneous content, but the brevity leaves some gaps.

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 explain what the tool returns (e.g., coverage metrics per control). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the output structure. For a read tool with 3 parameters, this is a notable omission.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by defining framework values (hipaa, pci_dss, soc2, gdpr) and explaining since/until as ISO timestamps bounding the period. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could note that since/until are optional.

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 it provides per-control coverage for a framework over a period, with the question 'are we covered?' clarifying its intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gap_analysis or control_evidence.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, without any context on when it is appropriate or when to choose other tools.

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