triage_test_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: recursive directory expansion, skipping test files, serial file auditing, and the output format (weakest-first leaderboard). It also mentions the `minScore` gate behavior. However, it does not detail all behaviors like fileConcurrency impact or response structure, which is partly covered by the output schema.

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 compact (two sentences plus a sibling reference) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler.

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 9 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality and usage flow. It could more explicitly state that all parameters are optional and describe the summary field, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'diffBase alone scans all changed supported source files; diffBase + paths intersects'). It also describes the `minScore` gate behavior. This elevates understanding beyond the schema alone.

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's function: 'Batch triage: audit a set of files and/or directories and return a weakest-first ranked leaderboard of mutation scores'. It differentiates from the sibling 'audit_code_resilience' by specifying that it provides a high-level overview, not per-mutant details.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Drill into a weak file with audit_code_resilience for per-mutant survivor detail.' This clearly tells the agent when to use the sibling tool. It also implies usage context (finding fragile areas) but lacks explicit exclusion scenarios.

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