cms_coverage_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'reports counts and registered assets' but doesn't state whether the scan is read-only or destructive, how long it might take (e.g., a large scan could be slow), or whether it modifies state. The lack of behavioral detail 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It could be slightly improved by breaking into two sentences or adding a comma after 'scan', but overall it is concise and direct.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview. However, it doesn't mention return format (e.g., JSON structure of counts and assets) or behavior when the catalog is empty, which would help the agent understand what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description explains the fixed scope (584-requirement catalog) and what the scan produces, adding sufficient context beyond the empty schema. There is nothing more to document.

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 a coverage scan mapping 584-requirement catalog domains/categories and reporting counts/assets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cms_list_requirements and cms_check_compliance, though the exact output structure is vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, cms_gap_report and cms_stats might overlap; the description doesn't clarify when coverage_scan is preferred or what prerequisites exist (e.g., scanning requires pre-loaded data).

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