coverage_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates safe read-only behavior. The description adds that this is a roll-up of archive counts, which provides further context about the output being a summary rather than raw data. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that clearly communicates the tool's output without any fluff. Every word adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete by listing the exact counts returned. It could optionally mention the scope ('across the whole library') more explicitly, but it is already stated.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-specific information. It appropriately describes the tool as requiring no inputs.

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 the tool provides a '3-2-1 coverage roll-up across the whole library' with specific metrics: total archive count and counts of unconfigured, unprotected, in progress, at risk, and fully covered archives. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_detail or tape_detail.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the description implies it is for a high-level overview of coverage across the entire library, which helps differentiate from more specific tools. It could benefit from stating that it is not for individual archive details.

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