delimit_test_coverage

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'experimental' tag hints at instability but is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but lacks essential details. It is front-loaded with purpose but sacrifices completeness. A middle score reflects the trade-off.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits information about prerequisites, execution model, or expected outcomes for an experimental/Pro feature, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's param descriptions (e.g., 'Project path', 'Coverage threshold percentage'). Baseline 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 clearly identifies the verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'test coverage', and includes contextual tags '(experimental) (Pro)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delimit_test_generate or delimit_test_smoke, though it could be more specific about the analysis action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other test-related siblings (e.g., delimit_test_generate). The description only mentions 'experimental' and 'Pro' status, which imply caution but not explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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