get_doc_coverage

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

The description adds the behavioral constraint of a 200 symbol cap and describes the output format. However, without annotations, it does not disclose safety info (e.g., read-only nature), error handling for invalid repo or empty list, or any side effects.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, mapping explanation, and constraints plus output. It is front-loaded and concise with no redundant information.

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. Parameters are fully described in the schema. The tool is simple with two parameters. Missing edge cases (e.g., repo not found) but otherwise complete for its purpose.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating the symbol_ids cap and explaining that the tool checks section titles for documentation. It also describes the output structure, which is not in the schema.

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's purpose: checking which jcodemunch symbols have matching documentation. It specifies the input (list of symbol IDs) and output (reported as documented vs absent), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_undocumented_symbols by focusing on a specific list.

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 provides clear context for use: given a list of symbol IDs, check coverage in the doc index. It mentions a cap of 200 symbol IDs, offering a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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