get_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the returned coverage payload looks like, how large it might be, or how it behaves when coverage was never enabled for the run — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be appropriately sized for a data-retrieval tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the return shape and preconditions (coverage must have been enabled on the run). It omits both, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or failure modes.

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 parameters (runId and files) are already documented in the schema, making a 3 the baseline. The description adds only the 'previous test run' framing and no extra detail about filtering semantics or runId format beyond what the schema supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get coverage data') plus a scope qualifier ('from a previous test run'), which separates it from sibling write/run tools like run_tests and rerun_failed. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest read siblings (get_failures, get_test_detail), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'From a previous test run' implies it only applies to already-completed runs that had coverage enabled, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of what happens if the run lacked coverage, so usage is only implied.

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