gavel_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about the output (overall percentage and per-file breakdown) and confirms it runs a full analysis, which is consistent with read-only behavior. No additional side effects are disclosed, but the description complements annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding one key usage hint. Every sentence is informative with 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?

The description explains the main output but does not cover the 'diff', 'packages', or 'gavelspace' parameters' effects beyond the schema. Since there is no output schema, the return value format is vague. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%. The description adds value by explaining the outcome when 'files' is used (uncovered line ranges). This goes beyond the schema descriptions that list parameters but do not highlight the special behavior of 'files'.

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 that the tool gets code coverage and reports overall percentage plus per-file breakdown. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like gavel_trends or gavel_findings, so differentiation is missing.

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 gives a usage hint for the 'files' parameter but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gavel_trends for trends). No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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