analyze_execution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'read-only' (redundant with annotation) and the note that record_analysis is for preservation, implying this tool does not persist. This is minimal added context, but no contradiction exists, so the score reflects adequate coverage by annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and an alternative without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 is terse and does not define 'compatible pair', which is essential for using comparison_run_or_artifact. It also does not position this tool among the many analyze_* siblings. However, the schema and output schema fill in the data contract, leaving the description adequate but with clear gaps in contextual guidance.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description's phrase 'execution-coverage runs or a compatible pair' hints at run_or_artifact and comparison_run_or_artifact but does not explain what makes a pair 'compatible'. Therefore, it adds no significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Inspect') and the specific resource ('execution-coverage runs or a compatible pair'), and explicitly notes the read-only nature. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling record_analysis by directing preservation to that tool, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly names record_analysis as the alternative for preservation, providing a clear when-not-to-use signal. It does not contrast with other analyze_* siblings, but the core use case is well-scoped. That meets the criteria for explicit alternatives, though not exhaustive exclusions.

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