plainweave_intent_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: read-only, advisory, never a pass/fail verdict, and explains truncation behavior (counts never truncated, surfaces_truncated flag). This exceeds expectations for transparency.

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 concise with no wasted words, but the parameter explanations are embedded in a single paragraph rather than structured separately. It remains clear and easy to parse.

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 the tool has only three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and caveats. No missing information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: exclude_namespaces (default scripts., tests.), surface_classes (subset of listed values), and max_surfaces (caps evidence lists with truncation flag). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: reporting the north-star coverage fraction of public surfaces answering 'why does this exist?' via SEI->requirement->goal. It uses specific, actionable verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like plainweave_intent_trace by focusing on coverage ratio.

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?

The description provides context that the tool is advisory and read-only, with the ratio qualified by denominator completeness, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. However, the differentiation from siblings is implied by the coverage focus.

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