get_coverage_report

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: data sources (manifests), what is detected, and the output structure. It does not contradict 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 sentence with a bullet list, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary, no redundancy beyond the redundant 'Read-only' which is acceptable.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. Combined with annotations, an AI agent can fully understand and invoke the tool.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it clarifies the output shape, which is valuable.

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 it produces a 'technology profile' by detecting frameworks from manifests, showing which are covered by trace-mcp plugins, and highlighting coverage gaps. It specifies the return structure as JSON with 'detected, covered, gaps', making the purpose distinct from sibling report tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_complexity_report or get_optimization_report. The description implies usage for checking plugin coverage, but does not differentiate conditions or provide exclusion criteria.

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