check_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses 'No login required' and frames the tool as a non-mutating query through 'Check' and 'Returns.' It does not mention rate limits or private-repo behavior, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by return details and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description successfully enumerates all return fields, states that no login is required, and gives explicit when-to-use guidance. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'repo' parameter format (URL or owner/name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed; 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?

States a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('GitHub repo's current test coverage'), and concrete output (current coverage percent, gap to 80%, recommended package, URLs). Clearly distinct from sibling tools which all concern bounties, missions, or PRs.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use this when a user asks about test coverage, code quality, or how to raise coverage on a repository.' Does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool competes with this functionality, so clear context without exclusions is acceptable.

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