Audit design coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that — no machine inspection is needed — which is useful, but it does not clarify what 'design coverage' actually measures or what the output represents.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Every clause carries information (action, scope, constraint) and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a coverage-audit tool the description never defines what 'design' or 'coverage' refer to in this domain, and it leaves the optional platform parameter's default behavior unspecified — gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, but the single parameter is a self-explanatory enum (windows/linux/darwin). The description merely restates those platform values and never says whether omitting the optional parameter produces a cross-platform result or defaults to the host, which is the one semantic an agent actually needs.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Measure design coverage') with an explicit scope (Windows, Linux or macOS). The clause 'without inspecting a machine' helps distinguish it from inspection-oriented siblings like inspect_setup and diagnose, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 'without inspecting a machine', which suggests the tool is for coverage assessment when no live endpoint is available. However, no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or sibling alternative is stated explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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