suite.coverage_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'creates' a coverage report, implying a generation or output operation, but doesn't specify what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), whether it's read-only or modifies data, or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded. There's no wasted language, making it concise.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., report format), behavioral traits like side effects, or how to interpret results. For a tool that generates reports, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without structured data to compensate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (testcases, requirements, modules). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., how testcases relate to requirements/modules) or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 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 states 'Test suite için kapsam raporu oluşturur' (Creates a coverage report for the test suite), which clearly identifies the verb ('oluşturur' - creates) and resource ('kapsam raporu' - coverage report). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'suite.compose' or 'testcase.generate', leaving the specific scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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, such as needing test cases as input, or compare it to sibling tools like 'testcase.to_xray' for reporting. Without any context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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