get_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. It conveys a read-only behavior through 'Extract' and 'Shows' and implies the source of data, but it does not disclose edge cases such as behavior when no test run exists, output format details, or potential failures. It adds some context but is not rich 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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant text. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps: it does not specify the return type, the effect of omitting className, or behavior when no prior test run exists. It is minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with className described as 'Filter coverage for a specific Apex class.' The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely aligning with 'per class.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 function: 'Extract code coverage data from the most recent test run' and specifies the output: 'Shows covered/uncovered lines per class.' This specific verb and resource clearly distinguish it from siblings like run_tests or scan_agentforce.

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 context (most recent test run) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool. It clarifies a prerequisite (a test run must exist) but offers no exclusions or alternative tool referrals.

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