Emit Coverage Skeleton

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, hinting at a read-only operation, but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The brevity leaves uncertainty about whether the skeleton is blank or includes placeholder data.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, critical information is omitted, so efficiency comes at the cost of completeness. It is not overly verbose, but lacks necessary detail for effective use.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a '20-surface coverage skeleton' is, how to use the returned data, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'coverage_check'. An agent would lack the context to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter 'project' is undocumented in both the schema and the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no clue what values are valid or how 'project' influences the output. The description adds no semantic context for the parameter.

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 'Return' and the resource '20-surface coverage skeleton', indicating a generation/delivery tool. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'coverage_check' or 'score', and the term '20-surface coverage skeleton' is domain-specific without explanation, potentially confusing an agent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for an agent to fill with evidence' implies a subsequent action but does not clarify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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