coverage_recommend

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 does this well by explaining the analysis logic, ranking criteria, and prioritization by actor usage, plus an illustrative output example. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the exact return format, but 'analyzes' and 'recommendations' strongly imply a non-mutating analysis tool.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the ranking logic, an illustrative answer, and the prioritization rule. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repeating schema content.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, how it prioritizes, and gives an example of the kind of output it produces. The prerequisite that session_id must come from coverage_assess_session appears only in the schema, not the main description, and there is no output schema, but the example partially compensates for the missing return-shape detail.

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%, with both session_id and max_recommendations already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific, informative phrase: 'Pareto-optimal log source recommendations.' It then explains exactly what the tool does: analyzes coverage gaps, ranks missing data sources by technique gaps closed, and prioritizes by actor usage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coverage_gaps_detail or identify_gaps, which focus on listing gaps rather than recommending sources.

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 the use case: after assessing coverage, get ranked recommendations for log sources to enable. The schema also notes that session_id must come from coverage_assess_session. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like coverage_gaps_detail or get_top_gaps, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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