coverage_map

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful traits: determinism and a non-session, graph-focused perspective. However, it does not disclose output shape, whether mutations are possible, failure modes, or how component_depth affects results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, and each sentence contributes unique information. There is no filler and the key concept, deterministic graph coverage by component, is immediately clear.

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?

The description gives a useful high-level identity but leaves out essential invocation context for an agent: no output schema, no usage examples, no pagination semantics, no explanation of component_depth, and no exclusion guidance vs sibling tools. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations this is genuinely incomplete.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It hints at component-based coverage, but it never explains limit, offset, or component_depth semantics. An agent would have to guess what component_depth means or how pagination works.

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 what the tool reports: deterministic indexed-graph coverage split into files, callable bodies, diagnostics, and unmodeled frontiers. It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as architecture_map or scan.

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 communicates a meaningful boundary: it covers graph-level coverage, not mutable per-client session activity. However, it never states when an agent should choose this tool instead of a sibling, or which alternative should be used for session-level or path-level analysis.

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