Rego test coverage gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context: it runs a command-line tool, returns sorted per-file breakdown, and allows filtering via threshold. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds value without repeating structural 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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct information: tool action, output breakdown, sorting, threshold usage. 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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately describes the return format ('per-file breakdown of uncovered line ranges', sorted by coverage). It does not specify exact JSON structure but provides enough context for an agent. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., OPA installed) but not necessary given typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that threshold limits to files below a target percentage, which is already in the schema description. It does not significantly expand on parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a score of 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?

The description clearly states it runs 'opa test --coverage' and returns a per-file breakdown of uncovered line ranges, identifying untested rules or branches. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rego_test' (runs tests without coverage) and 'rego_eval_with_coverage' (evaluates single query coverage) by focusing on per-file coverage gaps.

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 provides clear context: use to identify uncovered rules/branches and sort by coverage ascending. It also explains the threshold parameter's purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like 'rego_test' or 'rego_eval_with_coverage', leaving implied differentiation.

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