get_test_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the type of analysis but omits whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has computational cost. It also does not explain the response format or pagination behavior.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is structured well but could benefit from a clearer breakdown of what each element means.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation. It does not specify the format of the output, how 'limit' affects results, or how coverage metrics are defined.

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 only parameter 'limit' has a tautological description in the schema. The tool description does not mention or clarify the parameter's purpose, leaving the agent without context on how to use it effectively.

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 retrieves test coverage analysis, listing three specific aspects (test ratio, tested classes, untested complex code gaps). This gives a good sense of its purpose, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also analyze code health.

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 siblings like get_health_score, get_hotspots, or search_code. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools.

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