get_coverage

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds the prerequisite that index_repository must be called first, which is a behavioral constraint. No contradictions exist.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second gives the prerequisite. No extraneous information, and key details are front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, and output content. It lacks detail on the response format but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter (repo_path) with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only specifying that the repo must be indexed. 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 retrieves a documentation coverage report for an indexed repository, specifying that it shows which classes, functions, and methods have docstrings. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_complexity_metrics or get_architecture_health.

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 includes a mandatory prerequisite: 'index_repository must be called first.' This provides clear context for when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other analysis tools), leaving some ambiguity.

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