analyze_test_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes the tool as analyzing a report and producing gaps/suggestions, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention authorization needs or side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise and avoids fluff. Could be slightly more compact, but it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, all described, no output schema), the description covers the main actions: analyzing coverage, identifying gaps, and suggesting tests. It hints at output but does not fully describe the return format. Still, it is mostly complete for a coverage analysis tool.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The overall description does not add new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it mentions 'módulo ou serviço' which aligns with the schema's 'Nome do microsserviço ou módulo'). No extra parameter guidance is provided, so baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes test coverage of a specific module/service, identifies gaps and uncovered lines, and suggests new test cases. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_test_suite' (generates tests) and 'diagnose_test_failure' (diagnoses failures). The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 analyzing test coverage, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. However, the context is clear enough that an agent would use this for coverage analysis rather than other tasks like generating tests or diagnosing failures.

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