Get coverage report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that it runs a Gradle task and requires a plugin, but does not mention potential side effects like running tests or heavy build time. The 'skipRun' parameter is in the schema, not the description, and the description does not explain what the summary looks like or failure modes.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the main purpose, then add customization and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing. Ideal size for the information conveyed.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow (run, summarize), default behavior, customizability, and prerequisites. It does not detail return format or error handling, but the core use case is adequately complete. Sibling differentiation is partially handled, so not a 5.

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 individual parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default task behavior, giving a concrete example (jacocoTestReport), and stating the plugin prerequisite—context not present in the schema. This elevates it above baseline.

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 a specific action ('Run a coverage Gradle task') and resource ('summarize line coverage per package'), distinguishing it from sibling 'get_file_coverage' which is file-level. The verb-resource pair is unambiguous and not tautological.

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?

Provides clear context on default behavior (koverXmlReport<Variant>) and how to customize via 'task', plus a prerequisite (coverage plugin). Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when to use this tool vs file-level coverage. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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