test_coverage_analysis

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the server-side checks (probe spacing, keep-out violations, clearance) and warns about reviewing blocked points, providing transparency beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, detail the actions, and provide an important caution. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 (multiple checks), the presence of an output schema (to describe return values), and complete parameter documentation, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, inputs, behavioral details, and a caution. It is fully informative for an AI agent.

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 for both parameters. The description merely reiterates that the tool uploads a test points CSV and PCB file, adding no additional semantics or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes test point coverage and probe accessibility. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'test point coverage and probe accessibility', and details the specific checks (probe spacing, keep-out violations, fixture clearance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'test_provision_devices' or 'test_reliability_predict'.

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 implies usage by mentioning the required inputs (test points CSV, PCB file) and a warning to review blocked points before committing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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