stop_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool stops tracking and gets a report, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, if it modifies state, what the report format is, or any side effects (e.g., whether it clears coverage data). For a tool with potential state changes, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with two clear actions. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (involving stopping a process and retrieving a report), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, how it's formatted, or any behavioral nuances (e.g., if coverage data is preserved after stopping). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters exist (e.g., session context). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters with full schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('stop tracking') and resource ('code coverage'), and indicates it also retrieves a report. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_profiling' or 'stop', which might have similar stopping semantics but for different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that coverage tracking must be active via 'start_coverage'), nor does it specify when not to use it or what happens if coverage isn't running. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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