coverage_stop

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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It describes the action and return value but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether coverage data is reset, if the tool can be called multiple times, or if it requires prior state). The description is functional but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded action and result. Every sentence adds value: first states the purpose, second details output format and sorting. No fluff or redundancy.

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 no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description provides key output details (per-file summary, sorting). However, it omits prerequisite context (e.g., coverage must be started first) and any state implications. Could be slightly more 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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 stops coverage collection and returns a used/unused breakdown. It specifies the output format (per-file summary with bytes used, total, and unused percentage) and sorting order (by largest unused byte count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coverage_start.

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 vs. alternatives. It does not mention that coverage must be started first (via coverage_start) or any prerequisites. Sibling tools include many other actions, but the description offers no context for appropriate usage.

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