memorybank_analyze_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the load. It discloses performance (RÁPIDO ~2s), default behavior (no tree), and side effects of includeTree (LENTO). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only analysis tool this is sufficient.

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 (7 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and uses visual structure (emojis, bold) to highlight important warnings. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraints, and performance. It doesn't explain return format, but for a simple coverage analysis, the purpose is self-explanatory. A minor gap is not stating what 'coverage' means concretely.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that path must be absolute, providing an example, and explaining the includeTree default and performance implications. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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: 'Analiza la cobertura de indexación del proyecto' (Analyzes project indexing coverage). It specifies the verb (analiza), resource (cobertura de indexación), and context (project). This distinguishes it from siblings like memorybank_search or memorybank_index_code.

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 explicit usage instructions: path must be absolute, includes an example, and warns about includeTree performance. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to use correctly.

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