get_coverage_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation via 'snapshot' and describes the return shape. It does not mention destructive behavior or permissions, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage triggers, parameter details, and return structure in a logical order. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, usage triggers, parameter semantics, and return structure. An agent has all necessary information to correctly select and invoke this 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameter defaults and effects: min_tests (set to 0 to find untested specs, set to 1 to hide them) and include_orphans (default true). This adds significant meaning beyond the plain 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 it returns a snapshot of spec-test links, with both structured rows and a markdown table. It specifies the exact user queries it addresses ('what's tested' or 'which specs have no tests'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_drift_report or get_spec_context.

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 explicitly tells when to call the tool (when a user asks about testing coverage), but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives. It is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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