sumo_qa_record_coverage

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: validation fails before write, coverage is reported not gated, and the tool's role as plumbing. Annotations are all false and consistent with the description.

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 well-structured with sections (purpose, phrasings, parameter details, behavior) and front-loaded. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers inputs, validation behavior, and special cases (omit line_percent). A minor gap is the lack of return value information, but the tool likely has no significant output.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains the 'coverage' dict structure (including optional fields and semantics) and the 'write_to' default and path constraint. 'root' is implied but not deeply detailed.

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 the tool validates and persists a coverage summary as a specific artifact (.sumo-qa/coverage.json). It explicitly distinguishes this as 'plumbing only' and differentiates from siblings by focusing on recording rather than measuring coverage.

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?

Provides explicit common phrasings mapping to the tool and clarifies what it does not do (runs nothing, infers nothing). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is clear.

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