get_functional_coverage

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 explicitly discloses 'Read-only; no side effects' and describes what the report returns, covering the key behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise list of return contents and a helpful pointer to the alternative. No redundancy or filler.

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 description covers purpose, safety, output contents, and usage alternative. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail the return type further. The tool is a read-only report, so this is complete.

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 describes model_id but leaves server_version undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so it does not compensate for the missing schema description of server_version. With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not strong.

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 it 'Get[s] the full functional coverage report for a model' and enumerates specific contents (per-objective state, Capabilities × Conditions matrix, cell accounting). It distinguishes itself from check_functional_gaps by calling this 'the complete picture' and naming the alternative.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'when you only need the actionable subset... use check_functional_gaps instead.' Also states it is read-only with no side effects, giving clear context for safe invocation.

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