Get 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. It does disclose the non-mutating nature via 'Parse' and specifies the return content. However, it does not mention whether it searches for reports automatically, how it behaves with missing files, or whether any workspace state is read. This adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action and input types; the second states the output. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Without annotations, an output schema, or parameter descriptions for two of three fields, the description leaves important gaps: how to choose between cwd/packagePath/reportPath, default behavior, and the exact shape of the per-file report. For a tool with multiple optional parameters, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only 33%: only 'reportPath' has a description. The tool description adds context for 'package or workspace' and clarifies 'reportPath' as an explicit path, but it does not explain how 'cwd' and 'packagePath' interact or when they should be supplied. The description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Parse'), resource ('Istanbul JSON or LCOV coverage'), and result ('per-file percents and uncovered line numbers'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'coverage_gaps'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'coverage_gaps', 'analyze_changes', or 'inventory_tests'. It implies usage for parsing coverage files but does not state prerequisites, fallback scenarios, or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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