Coverage Report

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

The description explicitly states 'Touches nothing and costs no budget,' aligning with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also describes output behavior—every row grades a bug class and gaps are never silently absent—providing useful side-effect and result transparency beyond the 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 compact and well-structured: a short purpose statement, a clear grading model, a side-effect note, and a bullet list for parameters. No redundant or misleading text is present.

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 simple parameter set, the description covers purpose, output semantics, side-effect profile, and parameter meanings. It does not detail the exact output schema, but the row-based grading description is sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description bullet list explains all three parameters with concrete examples (e.g., 'sql-injection', 'auto', 'just the non-auto classes'). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and clarifies filtering intent.

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 reports bug-class coverage for Cordon, specifying what it finds, confirms, and bypasses. It distinguishes itself from broader reporting tools by focusing on coverage grades (auto, detect-only, manual) and explicitly naming gaps.

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 clear use case: 'the completeness check a client asks for before a test.' It also notes the tool touches nothing and costs no budget, implying safe pre-test usage, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative reporting tools.

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