Obter cobertura de testes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond running tests with coverage. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., writing coverage reports, installing plugins), runtime implications, or permissions needed, leaving the agent without crucial safety information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function without wasted words. It is concise, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 optional parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the output format (coverage report) or the automatic framework detection behavior (which is only in the schema), so the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual richness.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'framework' with an enum and a note about automatic detection (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 states 'Roda testes com coverage' (runs tests with coverage) and explicitly lists supported frameworks (Jest, Playwright, Cypress), making it clear this tool is for running tests with coverage, distinguishing it from the sibling run_tests tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'coverage' and the frameworks listed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like run_tests or qa_auto. The context suggests coverage-specific testing, but no direct comparison is provided.

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