iota_move_test_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns test results and coverage summary,' which gives some output context, but doesn't cover critical aspects like execution time, side effects, error handling, or permissions required. For a tool that runs tests, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently state the tool's action and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (running tests with coverage), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and the output type, but doesn't explain return values in detail or address behavioral nuances. This meets the minimum viable threshold but leaves clear gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.

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% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions for 'path' and 'filter.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Run Move tests with coverage analysis.' It specifies the verb ('Run') and resource ('Move tests'), and mentions the additional feature ('coverage analysis'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'iota_move_build' or other testing tools, which would require a 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or compare to other tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'iota_move_build' for building). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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