get_coverage

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that unknown OEMs still normalize (gate disables itself) and that passing optional oem resolves vertical and checks cross-vertical gate. This adds meaningful context, though it could mention read-only nature or side effects.

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?

Description is well-structured: main purpose, then parameter explanation, then usage guidance. Sentences are efficient and informative, avoiding redundancy. Could be slightly more compact, but current length is appropriate.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral notes. It lacks details on output structure, but that is expected from output schema. Overall, fairly complete for a coverage-check tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the optional oem parameter: 'see which vertical it resolves to and whether the cross-vertical gate will engage.' This adds semantic value beyond the mere schema definition, though format details are absent.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: 'Ask Forge what it can normalize BEFORE you try' and lists outputs (OEM verticals, field families, field list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize_telemetry by emphasizing its role as a prerequisite check.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: 'starting a new integration, or deciding whether to call normalize_telemetry'. Also clarifies behavior for unknown OEMs (absence is a soft signal, not a hard block), providing clear guidance on decision-making.

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