Review story test coverage

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature and behavior when no tests are linked (returns empty coverage, not error). Could add more about performance or auth, but adequate for agent understanding.

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?

Three well-organized sentences: purpose, when-to-use, detailed return. No fluff; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core action.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the returned bundle content (linked test cases with details, executions, cycles, coverage summary). Sufficient for agent to understand what it gets.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for issueKey. The description adds a useful example (LOYAL-1234) but does not provide new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('review' coverage) and resource ('story'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it returns a full digested bundle, while 'list_story_test_cases' only returns list/titles.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (assess coverage, well-formedness) and when not to (if only list needed), providing a direct alternative: 'use list_story_test_cases instead'. Also notes it is heavier than the alternative.

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