velixar_coverage_check

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the tool checks coverage and returns data, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't detail side effects, permission requirements, or limits. Description is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with the core action and outputs. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, description explains return values (ratio, gaps, queries). It provides usage context and covers parameter behavior via schema. Minor gap: could define 'coverage ratio' more precisely, but overall 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so description adds minimal extra parameter info. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 verb 'Check', resource 'how well retrieved memories cover a topic', and specific outputs 'coverage ratio, gaps, and suggested follow-up queries'. It also frames itself as an 'Anti-hallucination guardrail', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search or store.

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?

Explicitly advises using the tool before synthesizing an answer to verify completeness, and labels it as an 'Anti-hallucination guardrail'. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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