get_file_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what it returns (coverage percentages and line-level hit/miss info) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. Although 'Get' implies read-only, no explicit safety or side-effect disclosure is present.

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 clearly states the purpose and return value with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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 covers the core purpose and return value, and the schema handles parameter details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully contextualize the tool's usage among siblings or explain edge-case behaviors. It is sufficient for basic invocation but lacks guidance on when to choose it over alternatives.

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%, with all four parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It simply restates that the tool works on a 'specific file', which is already clear from the 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets line-by-line coverage data for a specific file in a repository, with return details (percentages and hit/miss info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_commit_coverage, get_repo_coverage, get_pull_request_coverage, and compare_coverage by focusing on file-level data.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. A user/agent must infer from the name and description that this is for file-level coverage, but no comparative context is given.

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