Coverage report (NEW v7)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is for introspection, confirming it is read-only and non-destructive. It provides further behavioral context about what the report contains (maps, integrity, etc.), enhancing transparency.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage trigger, and historical context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 fully covers tool purpose, usage context (after edits), and specific outputs. It also explains the tool's necessity via the v6 anecdote, making it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema covers 100%. The description adds no param details but explains the tool's output sufficiently. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is clear without needing param info.

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 tool provides an introspection report covering intent-rules mapping, rule-intents mapping, orphan rules, atomic-set integrity, and matcher trigger inventory. It differentiates from sibling tools by being a coverage report, and the specific outputs are listed.

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?

It explicitly instructs running after any edit to data/*.json and contrasts with v6 to highlight the tool's value. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the context is clear. No explicit alternatives are given, but the purpose is distinct from siblings.

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