get_documentation_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral context. It only states that it finds undocumented items and that limit/summary_only affect output; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how traversal works, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, directly states the purpose in the first sentence, and uses the second to provide a practical tip about output control. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool. It does not explain what 'documentation coverage' means, what the return structure looks like, or how parameters like max_depth, extensions, and ignore_patterns affect behavior, making it difficult for an agent to anticipate results.

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 input schema describes all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal nuance by highlighting limit and summary_only as output controls, but it does not elaborate on the purpose or interaction of other parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Finds undocumented functions/classes.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_functions (which likely lists all functions) and get_code_smells (which finds code smells), so it meets the highest bar for purpose clarity.

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 usage guidance is 'Use limit/summary_only to control output,' which addresses output size, not when to select this tool over alternatives. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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