infomaniak_api_coverage_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent ('Fetch', 'report'). It adds useful context about what the report contains (admin candidates, risky writes, intentionally out-of-scope surfaces), but does not cover rate limits or error behavior. With annotations present, the bar is lower and the added detail earns a 4.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the report's specific outputs. No filler or 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 tool has a clear purpose, fully described parameters, annotations, and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavioral scope, though it could have included an explicit use case or contrast with sibling coverage tools for perfect completeness.

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?

Both parameters (limit and docs_url) have complete schema descriptions including defaults and constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Fetch... and report') and specific resource ('Infomaniak developer portal navigation'), plus the exact categories of output (MCP endpoint coverage, admin candidates, risky writes, out-of-scope surfaces). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_overview or infomaniak_api_call.

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 implies this tool is for generating a coverage/audit report, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives such as infomaniak_tool_catalog or infomaniak_overview. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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