check_requirement_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (tracedCoverage, orphans, legacy fields) and explains the scope semantics, giving a transparent view of behavior. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the nature of returning statistics implies no mutation, which is acceptable for this context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a list to explain scope options and a clear separation for new vs legacy fields, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 is simple with a single parameter, and the description covers the scope semantics and the output fields. Since an output schema exists, detailed return documentation is not required. The description is complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, meaning the schema provides no description for the 'scope' parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining the two valid values, their meanings, and the default, making parameter semantics crystal clear.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('coverage statistics for requirements'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_documentation_coverage. It also explains the purpose of the scope parameter, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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 provides clear context on how to use the tool via the scope parameter, explaining the two modes ('authored' vs 'all') and noting that 'all' is legacy behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that guidance is implied.

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