Validates that every in-scope path has exactly one coverage-ledger entry, catching missing or duplicate coverage before an audit report is marked complete.
Phase 2: validate that every in-scope path has exactly one coverage-ledger entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ledger | Yes | ||
| scope_paths | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. "Validate" implies a pure read, but the description never says whether it mutates anything, whether violations are returned as a list or raised as an error, how duplicates/missing paths are reported, or what the result shape looks like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the phase label leads. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being padded, so it scores well on efficiency but not perfectly on sufficiency.
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?
The input is a nested ledger structure with enums, required fields and size limits, there is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is one clause long. For a tool whose entire value is the failure-reporting semantics, an agent cannot tell what a successful versus failing invocation looks like.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps its wording to the two parameters ("in-scope path" → scope_paths, "coverage-ledger entry" → ledger) and says nothing about the required status/category enums, the mandatory rationale field, or the 5000-item cap.
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 gives a specific verb plus resource: validate that every in-scope path has exactly one coverage-ledger entry, which is a precise, checkable invariant. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its sibling cloudflare_coverage_ledger_validate, whose name suggests an overlapping function.
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?
"Phase 2:" implies sequencing (run after the reconnaissance/ledger phase), which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling validate tool as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.