assay_check_coverage

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, return format, or any behavioral traits. The word 'analyze' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters; it trades substance for brevity. While efficient in word count, it lacks the necessary structure and detail.

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 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain parameters, return values, or behavioral context, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain what each parameter means. The description only provides the tool's high-level purpose and gives no information about 'policy', 'traces', 'threshold', or 'format'. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how to correctly fill the parameters.

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 ('analyze') and the resource ('trace coverage against a policy'), which is specific enough to understand the tool's main function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like assay_check_args or assay_check_sequence, which also check aspects of assay policies.

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 such as assay_check_args or assay_check_sequence. Without context on coverage vs. args/sequence, an agent cannot decide which tool is appropriate.

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