get_documentation_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool 'Finds undocumented functions/classes' but does not explain how it determines 'undocumented', whether it scans recursively, performance implications, or that it is a read-only analysis. This is minimal disclosure.

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 very short with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant given the schema, and the overall brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too sparse to cover important behavioral details, return format, or how 'undocumented' is defined. It provides a basic purpose but leaves major gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond highlighting 'limit' and 'summary_only', which are already described in the schema. It meets the baseline but does not compensate further.

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 'Finds undocumented functions/classes', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_code_inventory or get_code_smells, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 only guidance is 'Use limit/summary_only to control output', which is about parameter tuning rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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