code_coverage

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists actions without describing side effects (e.g., persistence, performance impact, required state). The mention of ZRCP is a technical detail but not behavioral.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a concise list of actions. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 1-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and actions. However, it omits return value details for 'get' (e.g., format of addresses) and any prerequisites or side effects of 'clear'. Lacks output schema to compensate.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema description already explains each enum value. The tool description paraphrases these actions without adding new semantics (e.g., 'tracking' for enabled). 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 states the tool is for CPU code-coverage control, listing the specific actions (enable, disable, get, clear). It references the ZRCP command and distinguishes it from sibling debugging tools like cpu_step or hexdump by focusing exclusively on code coverage.

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 over alternatives among siblings. It does not explain conditions for enabling vs disabling, nor when to retrieve vs clear the list. Usage context is entirely implied.

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