Verify Test Coverage Against Requirements

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that the tool reads files and reports outputs, confirming no destructive actions. It specifies the output structure (coverage percentage, uncovered requirements, traceability matrix), which goes beyond 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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the input and operation, the second states the output. No fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully covers return values (coverage percentage, uncovered requirements, traceability matrix). Input parameters are well-documented in schema. The tool's moderate complexity is adequately addressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema thoroughly documents all three parameters. The tool description does not add further parameter-level semantics but competently wraps the schema's information.

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 reads test results JSON and cross-references with requirement IDs, reporting coverage and traceability. It uses a specific verb ('reads' plus 'cross-references') and resource ('test results', 'SPECIFICATION.md'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdd_verify_tasks or sdd_compliance_check.

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 usage when test results are available and requirement coverage needs checking. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of requiring test results JSON makes it clear. However, some guidance on prerequisites or assumptions would improve it.

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