feature_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the report is intentionally non-exhaustive ('without claiming 100%'), but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or read-only nature beyond what 'Report' implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element (supported feature families, GUI/API gaps, non-100% claim) contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 an output schema and zero parameters, the description does not need to explain return values. However, terms like 'feature families' and 'GUI/API gaps' are left undefined, so the agent must infer what categories are covered and whether this overlaps with sibling capability tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies because the description correctly does not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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 gives a specific verb (Report) and resource (supported feature families and explicit GUI/API gaps). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not differentiate itself from nearby capability-oriented siblings like orca_capabilities or native_ui_capabilities.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without claiming 100%' hints at a use case for honest gap reporting, but no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.

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