extract_coverage

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

While annotations are present (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description does not clarify potential side effects or operational behavior. 'Extract' implies reading, but readOnlyHint is false, creating ambiguity. The phrase 'bounded execution-path evidence' adds little about runtime effects or prerequisites like the meaning of 'bounded'.

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 with no redundancy or irrelevant details. It is front-loaded and easily parseable, appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain what 'bounded execution-path evidence' means, what run_id should be passed, or any expected behavior. The presence of an output schema shifts some burden, but the description still lacks essential context to invoke the tool effectively.

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 input schema has one required parameter (run_id) with no description, and the description does not mention or explain run_id at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying what run_id refers to (e.g., a run identifier from a prior execution), making the parameter's purpose entirely opaque.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Extract') and resource ('bounded execution-path evidence through coverage.py's public API'), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like extract_pytest or extract_python_startup. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, using 'coverage.py' to differentiate it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the function without contextual cues, so an agent has no basis for selecting it over other extract_* tools beyond the name and general topic.

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