knowerage_coverage_overview

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral detail: it reads data, uses fresh records, and the extensions filter applies to sources, stale list, and project scan. It doesn't mention side effects, which is fine as it's an overview tool.

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 front-load the tool's purpose and outputs, with no redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds value.

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, the description lists key return fields. The single parameter is fully described. Misses potential details like pagination or data range limits, but overall complete for typical use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds default values and examples for the extensions parameter, clarifying usage beyond the schema's basic description.

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 tool provides a batch coverage overview for all source files, listing specific outputs (per-source coverage, ranges, stale records, totals). It distinct from siblings like knowerage_get_file_status or knowerage_list_stale.

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 mentions it uses fresh records and optional extensions filter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowerage_get_file_status or knowerage_list_stale. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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