sct_add_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Generate' and 'Pro feature,' leaving unclear whether this reads or mutates state, what output it produces, whether an api_key is required, or what 'contract test coverage' concretely involves.

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 efficient sentence with the key action front-loaded and the 'Pro feature' caveat included. It has no wasted words, though the brevity does limit its usefulness.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete: it fails to clarify what 'coverage' means, how the api_key is used, what the tool actually returns, and when it should be selected over the many coverage- or contract-test sibling tools.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema for either parameter. Schema coverage is only 50%: 'directory' is explained as 'Project directory,' but 'api_key' is undocumented, and the description does not clarify the api_key's role or the required directory format.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate contract test coverage.' It distinguishes the tool from unrelated siblings, but it does not differentiate it from closely related tools like sct_generate_tests, coverage_report, or api_contract_test.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Pro feature' but does not explain prerequisite conditions, nor does it name any sibling tool or exclusion criteria.

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