conduyt_mcp_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses the three categories of results, that exclusions carry reasons, and that the matrix ships with the package and matches this release's tools exactly — a useful staleness/consistency guarantee. It does not describe the per-entry shape (method, path, mapped tool name) or confirm read-only/non-destructive semantics, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Front-loads the identity of the artifact, then parenthetically enumerates what it contains, then states the usage motivation. Dense but every clause contributes; the long parenthetical is the only mild readability cost.

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?

For a two-optional-filter discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (per-endpoint coverage status, mapped tool, exclusion reason). It stops short of naming the actual fields of each entry, which would be the ideal compensation for the missing output schema.

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 both status and pathPrefix are already documented, including the enum values and a path example. The description adds no filter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific artifact (the REST-to-MCP coverage matrix) and enumerates its three coverage categories, so the resource is unambiguous. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling conduyt_api_catalog by framing itself as the answer to 'is this endpoint callable via MCP?'.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: use it after discovering a capability in conduyt_api_catalog to check executability before attempting it, rather than failing mid-task. It names the complementary tool but does not state any when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. don't use for general API discovery).

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