get_commit_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the type of data returned (coverage percentage and file-level changes) but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'file-level changes' is ambiguous—unclear if it means file modifications or file-specific coverage metrics.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values. It vaguely mentions 'overall coverage percentage and file-level changes,' but does not specify the response structure, data types, or whether it returns a single object or array. This is sufficient for a simple get tool but leaves gaps for an agent to predict the exact output.

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 100%, so all three parameters (owner, repo, commit_sha) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: 'Get coverage data for a specific commit' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_repo_coverage and get_file_coverage by focusing on a specific commit and mentioning 'overall coverage percentage and file-level changes.'

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 context is implied by the phrase 'for a specific commit,' suggesting it is for commit-level queries, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_repo_coverage or compare_coverage. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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