scout_coverage

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only reporting operation via 'Show' and scopes the behavior to 'all runs' and unexercised elements. It does not mention output formatting or staleness, but for a simple coverage-reporting tool, the transparency is reasonably complete.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core output definition, then immediately gives the intended decision-making use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: it defines what coverage means and when to use it. It could add output shape or formatting details, but those are not essential for correct usage.

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%, and the single `session` parameter is already well-documented in the schema, including concurrent versus sequential usage. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully compensates, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a concrete resource ('exploration coverage') and defines what that means: states visited across all runs and which elements remain unexercised. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the scout_* siblings like scout_scan, scout_snapshot, or scout_navigate by focusing on aggregate coverage rather than a single action or snapshot.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use to decide where to explore next and when the level's budget is satisfied.' This gives clear decision context, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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