Assess Use-Case Coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the return type ('coverage_result document') but lacks any mention of side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is read-only. The description could also benefit from noting if the assessment modifies any files or state.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word serves a purpose without 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 that there is no output schema, the description mentions the return value ('coverage_result document') but does not elaborate on its structure or fields. The tool is simple with two string parameters, so the description is mostly adequate, but a bit more detail on the output would improve completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'local path to YAML files'. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Assess' and the specific resources: 'one use case' against 'one composition profile'. It explicitly mentions the return of 'one coverage_result document', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compare' or 'prioritize' that have different purposes.

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 implies usage when needing to assess coverage of a use case against a profile, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the sibling tools. For example, it does not clarify when one should use 'assess' versus 'compare' or 'recommend_composition'.

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