Analyze Test Coverage (Async)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is asynchronous and provides real-time progress, but does not detail side effects, permissions required, or how progress is tracked (e.g., polling, callbacks). The lack of safety information (e.g., read-only vs destructive) is a 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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though the first sentence could be more informative than a near-repetition of the title.

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 async nature, lack of output schema, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how to retrieve results, or potential side effects. Real-time progress is mentioned but not detailed. The description seems tailored for Portuguese-speaking users but lacks completeness for an automated agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions in Portuguese. The description adds that the analysis identifies gaps and generates suggestions, which is not in the schema but provides context on output. However, since the schema already explains each parameter's meaning, the description adds minimal value beyond baseline.

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 it performs an asynchronous analysis of test coverage with real-time progress. It mentions identifying critical gaps and generating suggestions, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like analyze_test_coverage or task_analyze_full_coverage, though the async aspect is implied as distinctive.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for async analysis with progress, but does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., synchronous analysis) would be more appropriate.

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