Code-level compliance coverage report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it is 'code-level evidence only' and not an audit, and describes the output format ('X of N code-visible controls have findings' with explicit denominator). This goes beyond annotations to set correct expectations.

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 core action and resource, and includes a clear caveat. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, complete input schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, output format hint, and limitations. It does not need to explain return values since output schema exists, and for a read-only reporting tool, this is complete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the burden on the description is low. The description mentions the frameworks in parentheses, mirroring the enum, and explains the per-framework view, which aligns with the optional framework parameter. This adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool produces a 'per-framework code-level control-coverage view for a prior scan,' specifies the supported frameworks, and explicitly distinguishes itself from a compliance audit. The verb 'produce' and resource 'code-level control-coverage view' are specific. Sibling tools like codeinspectus_explain_finding have different purposes, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 notes this tool is for a 'prior scan,' implying it should be used after a scan. It also warns that it is NOT a compliance audit or attestation, guiding against misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over specific siblings like codeinspectus_explain_finding, leaving some ambiguity.

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