sumo_qa_measuring_coverage

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: it executes the repo's configured tool, accepts any output format, and writes a compact summary into .sumo-qa artifacts. It omits failure behavior, permissions, and idempotency, so it falls short of full transparency but is well above minimal.

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?

Front-loaded with the routing precondition and trigger phrases, then the behavioral summary. Slightly dense with embedded quoted phrases but every clause contributes; no filler sentences.

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?

No params, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description must carry the load, and it covers when to invoke, what it runs, and where results land. Failure-mode and permission details are missing, but for a zero-parameter action tool this is largely complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema has nothing to document and the description introduces no misleading parameter hints. There is simply no parameter surface to enrich.

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: runs the repo's configured coverage/mutation tool, reads its output, and persists a compact summary into .sumo-qa artifacts. This is distinguishable from siblings like record_coverage and record_mutation because it names its own run-read-persist pipeline.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here' and lists concrete trigger phrases ('run coverage', 'run mutation testing', 'record the survivors'). The agent knows both the precondition and the user intents that select this tool.

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