auth_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool detects auth guards and reports results, which implies it is read-only and does not modify files. This is adequate for an analysis tool. It could add more detail about what happens if no guards are found or if middleware is missing, but it is still clear.

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 short but substantive: 3 sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, and ends with an illustrative example. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 is complete for a moderately complex analysis tool. It states what it does, how to use it, and gives an example. It could mention the 'path' alternative for auto-discovery (though that is in the schema) and clarify the output format (markdown vs json), but these are minor omissions given the schema covers them.

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 already describes all 4 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the usage pattern (pass files array and middleware content) and providing an example, which gives context beyond the schema's property descriptions. It does not redundantly repeat schema details.

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: analyzing authentication coverage across Next.js App Router routes, detecting auth guards like Clerk, NextAuth, Supabase, and custom, and reporting protected vs unprotected routes. It provides a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('authentication coverage') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on auth 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?

The description tells the user to pass a 'files' array with route file contents and middleware content, giving a concrete example. It implies when to use (when analyzing auth coverage) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, given the context signals (no other siblings focused on auth in the list), this is not a major gap.

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