veto_test_gaps

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

The description reveals the dual-mode operation (coverage report or source scanning) and aligns with readOnlyHint=true. However, it fails to mention the role of the agent_response parameter, which is crucial for the agentic loop, and does not explain the output format of suggested test cases.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. No wasted words; all information is relevant and logically structured.

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?

Despite clear purpose, the description omits the agentic loop mechanism (agent_response parameter) and does not describe the return value format. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested object), more detail is needed for full agent understanding.

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%, providing baseline. The description adds context by linking coverage_report and source_glob to the two modes, but it does not elaborate on the agent_response parameter, leaving its purpose unclear from the description alone.

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 reads coverage reports or scans source files to identify untested paths and suggests test cases. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools, which are mostly different (e.g., veto_type_coverage is for type coverage).

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 finding untested code and getting test suggestions but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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