snapshot_index_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states that the report includes skips, exclusions, quality, and exhaustiveness, and notes that candidate files are not claimed as proven graph membership, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, side effects, or output format.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose before adding the caveat. It is efficient, though the phrase 'CBM graph membership' is jargon that could limit immediate clarity.

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 lists several report contents and includes an important caveat, which helps for a read-only reporting tool with no output schema. However, it still leaves the optional project parameter, expected output shape, and comparison to sibling tools underexplained.

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%, so the single project parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description mentions reporting 'by project,' implying grouping or filtering, but does not explain the project parameter's format, optional nature, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: reporting verified source-integrity coverage for an immutable snapshot, broken down by project and file extension. It is clearly a coverage-reporting tool rather than a file-listing or graph-search tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like index_status or get_graph_schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as index_status, list_snapshot_files, or search_graph. The caveat about candidate files not being proven CBM graph membership is a limitation, not a usage rule.

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