PhpCodeArcheology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'untested complex code gaps' hints at filtering logic, but the description lacks details on computational cost, caching behavior, or authentication requirements.

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, efficiently structured sentence with the action front-loaded and zero wasted words. The colon-delimited list provides specific outputs without verbosity.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the three specific analysis components returned. However, it omits mention of the 'limit' parameter and provides no detail on response structure or pagination.

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 input schema has 100% coverage (the 'limit' parameter is described in the schema as 'Parameter: limit'), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description text adds no meaning about what the limit constrains (e.g., classes, results, files) or its default behavior.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('test coverage analysis'), and specific scope components ('test ratio, tested classes, and untested complex code gaps'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_metrics or get_health_score by specifying exactly what coverage data is returned.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_metrics or get_health_score, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring a test suite to be present or when the analysis was last updated.

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