Flow Coverage

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful interpretation context: flow-derived findings only apply to the covered portion of the corpus, and clarifies the special gate semantics, which is beyond annotation content.

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 compact and front-loaded about the returned information; the second sentence provides the operational instruction. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary schema information.

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 zero-input, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description provides enough context about what coverage means, how it is split, and when to call the tool. No essential guidance is missing.

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, so the description is not expected to document parameter semantics. Schema already covers the entire parameter surface.

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 what the tool reports: corpus-wide ATT&CK Flow coverage split by provenance, plus totals for nodes, transitions, and path similarity, and the coverage-gate status. It is specific and reader can distinguish it from siblings like get_attack_flow and get_mitre_coverage, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 explicitly says to call this tool before reasoning over flow data so that findings are correctly interpreted against the covered slice. It gives clear usage context, but it does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives.

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