delimit_test_coverage

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

No annotations provided, but description compensates fully by stating side effects: read-only, gated by require_premium, calls backends.ui_bridge.test_coverage, and marked experimental with heuristic detection.

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?

Description is compact, well-structured with clear sections (when to use, when not, sibling contrast, side effects). Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and side effects (including experimental nature and backend call), it is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds no additional parameter details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value beyond 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?

Clearly states 'Analyze test coverage for a project', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming delimit_test_smoke and delimit_test_generate and explaining their differences.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (surface coverage for CI pass/fail) and when NOT to use (scaffold stubs or smoke run), including alternative tool names.

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