Topos Structural Coverage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description supplements this by detailing what is measured (UAST bipartite matching, k-gram path recall) and the performance caveat for ECT. No contradictions.

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 concise paragraphs with front-loaded purpose, followed by usage differentiation and a prominent warning. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 no output schema, description mentions CoverageResult and internal metrics. Rich annotations cover side effects. Could mention synchronous nature but not critical. Complete for most agent needs.

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 100%, so the burden on description is low. The description does not add individual parameter details but contextualizes the experimental ECT parameter indirectly. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Measure', resource 'test suite coverage', and specifies structural (UAST) and semantic (ECT) methods. Differentiates from siblings like topos_evaluate_* which provide quality verdicts, thus establishing a distinct purpose.

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 notes that this is a standalone signal separate from the lattice, and advises using topos_evaluate_* for quality verdicts. Also warns about experimental ECT being 100x–1000x slower, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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