analyze_coverage

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

Discloses automatic exclusion of non-production files, prevention of analysis on test files, and configuration via vitest.config.ts. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it adequately informs about safety and no destructive actions.

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?

Well-structured with key information upfront and a dedicated 'USE WHEN' section. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 no output schema, description explains what metrics are returned (lines, functions, branches, statements) and provides example patterns for exclude parameter. Covers prerequisites, automatic behaviors, and usage triggers comprehensively.

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 good descriptions. Description adds context beyond schema: target should be source code (not test files), relative paths from project root, and why target is required (prevents slow full analysis).

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?

Description clearly states it performs test coverage analysis with metrics for lines, functions, branches, and statements, and distinguishes from sibling tools (list_tests, run_tests, set_project_root) by focusing on coverage rather than test execution or listing.

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 lists when to use (coverage-related queries) and states prerequisite 'Requires set_project_root to be called first'. Also recommends preferring this over raw vitest coverage commands. Missing explicit when-not usage, but the guidance is clear.

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