prumo_coverage

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real context beyond that: the exact returned fields (git-tracked files, commits in the last ninety days, last commit), the ordering ('most active first'), and the important caveat that omission may be intentional. It does not discuss cost or scale, but it goes well past the 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the opening phrase, which is good, but the remainder is a single long run-on sentence with heavy nested clauses ('that no context file cites a path in and that holds no context file of its own') that slows parsing. It is information-dense rather than padded, but the structure could be split into shorter sentences without losing content.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately: it enumerates the per-folder fields and the sort order, and it warns that absence is not necessarily a defect. What is missing is any indication of scope limits or expected result size, but an agent has enough to call it correctly and read the response.

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 100% for both parameters (repo and targets), so the schema already explains defaults and auto-detection. The description references the notion of context files that 'targets' checks but adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reports the folders of the code that no context file mentions') and then enumerates exactly what is reported: top-level folders or workspace packages not cited by a context file, with git-tracked files, 90-day commits, and last commit, most active first. This is precise enough to distinguish it from prumo_check, prumo_drift, and prumo_budget without opening any schema.

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 clause 'It is what the agent is never told about, never a finding' gives interpretive context for when the output matters and steers the caller away from treating gaps as defects, and 'Nothing is written' reinforces the read-only nature. However, it never names an alternative sibling or states an explicit when-to-use condition, so usage is only implied.

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