get_doc_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It adds behavioral details: the cap of 200 symbol_ids and the output format {documented, undocumented, coverage_pct}. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical constraints (cap, output format). Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description provides the output structure, which is helpful. Parameters are fully covered in schema. The tool is simple and the description covers the main functionality. Missing error handling or edge cases but adequate for a straightforward check tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it explains that symbol_ids are used for coverage check but does not elaborate on repo parameter constraints or formats. No additional semantics.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'jcodemunch symbols... in this doc index'. It specifies the action: given symbol IDs, reports documented vs undocumented. The output format is provided, and the cap at 200 adds precision. The tool's purpose is distinct from siblings like list_docs or get_undocumented_symbols, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 usage for checking documentation coverage but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The mention 'Bridges jcodemunch <-> jdocmunch' provides context but lacks clear guidance on exclusions or alternative tools.

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