analyze_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only reporting operation via 'Get' and 'Returns', and adds the useful detail that the payload is ~2KB. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or default behavior when source_type is omitted, but the risk profile appears low.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a helpful size hint and a concise parameter note. Every sentence adds value, though the output list is slightly dense.

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 simple one-parameter surface, the description adequately explains what results are returned, including a payload size estimate. With no output schema, it sufficiently covers return expectations, although it could clarify the all-sources default behavior when source_type is not provided.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds the scoping intent ('scope to a single rule source') and implies the filter is optional, but it does not specify what happens when the parameter is omitted.

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 retrieves MITRE ATT&CK coverage stats and enumerates the exact outputs: tactic breakdown, top 10 covered techniques, and weak-spot tactics. It is specific about the resource and result, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_coverage_summary or get_top_gaps.

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 explains how to use the optional source_type filter but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many overlapping MITRE/coverage-related siblings. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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