validate_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates by indicating the tool validates and detects staleness, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or is idempotent. More transparency would improve the score.

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 and well-structured. It starts with a single-sentence summary, lists arguments with brief explanations, and specifies the return value. Every sentence serves a purpose 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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the basic functionality, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks details on error handling, expected input formats, or why a user would choose this tool over siblings. This leaves some gaps for a validation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'project_dir: Path to the project root.', 'ctx_dir: Path to the ctx/ output directory.', and 'check_stale: If True, detect modules whose source has changed (default True).' These descriptions add meaningful context beyond the schema's type and name, though they could be slightly more detailed.

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: 'Validate that every module has a generated context JSON, and detect stale ones.' It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (coverage of context JSONs per module), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like assemble_docs and scan_skeleton, which likely handle assembly and scanning respectively.

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 its siblings or alternative approaches. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit conditions for invocation. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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