coverage_report

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 lists the report contents but doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, or how 'status' is determined. The word 'Report' suggests non-mutation but lacks explicit confirmation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with 'Report', and every listed metric carries meaning. No redundant text.

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 report tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description leaves out essential context: what 'per topic schema' entails, the semantics of 'status', and the effect of 'limit'. It is not fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, leaving the agent to guess its function (pagination vs. aggregation) entirely unaided.

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 states a specific verb 'Report' and resource 'review coverage per topic schema', listing concrete metrics (memory count, reviewed count, coverage ratio, average retrievability/importance, status). It distinguishes from sibling report tools by focusing on review coverage per schema, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 tool is used to obtain coverage statistics but doesn't provide any when-to-use/alternatives guidance. With many sibling report tools, this creates ambiguity about when to select this one.

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