sumo_qa_measuring_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool runs the configured coverage/mutation tool, reads its output, and persists a summary. This is transparent but omits potential failure modes or configuration requirements.

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, front-loaded with usage guidance, and every sentence adds distinct value. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 or output schema, the description adequately covers when and how to use it. It explains the process and artifact location, fitting the complexity of the tool well.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the tool's actions but does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the verb (runs, reads, persists) and resource (coverage/mutation tool, .sumo-qa artifacts). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sumo_qa_record_coverage and sumo_qa_record_mutation, which may overlap in purpose.

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 explicit usage context ('Use when the user wants coverage or mutation numbers') and lists example phrases. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools for similar tasks.

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