extract_coverage

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

With no positive annotations, the description carries more burden and does communicate that this is an extraction via a public API, suggesting read-oriented behavior. However, it does not disclose possible side effects, whether the extraction is safe to repeat, or what 'bounded' means operationally.

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 one concise sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It loses a point because 'bounded execution-path evidence' is dense and could have been expressed more plainly.

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 output schema may cover return shape, but the description omits the meaning of run_id, any usage conditions, and behavioral caveats. Given one required input and many sibling extractors, this is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool 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 only required parameter, run_id, is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description; schema description coverage is 0%. The phrase 'bounded execution-path evidence' only weakly hints that the run_id bounds the extraction, with no format or source for the ID provided.

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 ('extract') and identifies the source and scope ('coverage.py's public API', 'bounded execution-path evidence'), which separates it from siblings like extract_pytest or extract_memray. It stops short of a 5 because 'bounded execution-path evidence' is jargon and the exact output is left mostly to the output schema.

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 this is the tool for coverage.py-derived evidence by naming coverage.py, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. In a large family of extract_* tools, the agent is left to infer the condition for selecting this one.

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