Studio task coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that a fuller mode exposes sources, eligibility and live evidence, plus a caveat that UI access alone is not a completed workflow — useful but thin behavioral context.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose statement is front-loaded before the parameter hint and caveat. The final caveat sentence is slightly aphoristic but earns its place as a usage warning.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears responsibility for describing returns; it names categories (coverage, restrictions, sources, eligibility, live evidence) but gives no sense of shape or size. For a zero-required-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry full burden. It explains what detail=full unlocks, but leaves `family` undefined — no hint about what values are valid or what a family represents, and `detail=summary` (the default) is never contrasted beyond implication.

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?

"Task coverage summary and restrictions" names a resource but the domain jargon ("task coverage") leaves the actual output ambiguous — is it a list of supported tasks, a coverage percentage, or a feature matrix? It is distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings (studio_click, studio_launch) as an informational tool, but the verb is implicit.

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?

"Request family or detail=full for sources/eligibility/live evidence" gives a concrete condition for escalating detail, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to call this tool at all versus studio_status or studio_verification_status, nor does it state exclusions.

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