prd_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state whether the tool is safe (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 output schema and annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: the agent doesn't know what the output looks like, how results are structured, or how to interpret 'discrete nodes'. For a tool analyzing coverage, more detail is needed.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (projectPath), with a schema description ('项目路径'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full 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 it analyzes code coverage of PRD requirements and finds uncovered fragments, using a specific verb ('分析') and resource ('PRD需求的代码覆盖率'). Differentiates from sibling tools like prd_import and prd_search which handle other PRD operations. However, '离散节点' (discrete nodes) may be ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prd_search or summary_generate. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without context.

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