get_coverage_gaps

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds meaningful behavioral detail by defining the forward coverage gap, the reverse gap involving recent launches, and what kinds of results are surfaced. This goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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?

Two sentences with no padding: the first states what the tool surfaces, and the second gives a direct use case. The key output categories are front-loaded before the softer context sentence.

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?

The description covers the main return categories and the purpose, while the schema thoroughly covers all five parameters. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the output and does so at a practical level. It would be slightly stronger with a note about how results are combined or limited, but it is otherwise complete.

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%, and every parameter has a clear description with defaults and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Identify') and a specific resource ('test coverage gaps'), then enumerates exactly what counts as a gap: unlinked test cases, low-automation folders, and reverse-gap autotests. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like search_tests or get_feature_scan.

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 gives a general context ('Useful for test planning and coverage improvement'), which implies when the tool might be used, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer or avoid this tool over sibling alternatives nor name any exclusion conditions. This is useful but not explicit routing guidance.

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