coverage_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action 'generate report' without explaining whether it is read-only, what data it accesses, or what 'coverage' means in this context. No output schema exists, so the agent cannot infer return behavior.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it lacks structural elaboration. Nonetheless, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the coverage report contains and how the optional parameters affect it. It does not, leaving the tool's output ambiguous. Combined with no usage guidance, the contextual completeness is low.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (languages and namespaces), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add parameter-level details, but the schema provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'generate' and identifies the resource as 'coverage report for translations,' making it clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and description are sufficient for a basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over sibling tools like quality_analysis or usage_analysis. The description neither states prerequisites nor contrasts the tool with alternatives, leaving the agent without usage context.

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