rush_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two modes (import vs. run analysis) and the --allow-slow flag, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether it writes files, requires network/build access, or what the output looks like. The schema shows many allow_* flags (allow_build, allow_network, allow_download, etc.) but the description doesn't explain their behavioral implications.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the primary action (import) and mentions the alternative mode. However, it's so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain the two modes' relationship, what the allow_* flags do, when to use them, or what the output schema contains. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without opening the schema and guessing at flag semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 9 parameters. It only mentions 'local coverage report' (mapping to path/report_path) and '--allow-slow' (mapping to allow_slow), leaving the other 7 parameters (allow_build, allow_browser, allow_network, allow_download, allow_cache_write, allow_artifact_write) completely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 states a specific action ('Import a local coverage report or run coverage analysis') and names the resource (coverage), which is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other rush_* tools that might also analyze code, and the 'under --allow-slow' phrasing is cryptic without explaining what that flag does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rush_test, rush_benchmark, or rush_review. It doesn't state prerequisites, when importing a report is preferred over running analysis, or what the --allow-slow flag implies for usage. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name and schema.

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