coverage_report

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

The description discloses that the tool returns per-screen coverage and a missing-state list, implying a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover details like data sources, required permissions, or potential performance impact.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the output. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple reporting tool with no parameters, but it lacks context relative to the sibling 'project_validate'. No output schema is provided, but the return values are mentioned. Complete enough for basic use.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is acceptable. Baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 compares screens delivered vs. states needed and returns per-screen coverage and missing-state list. It distinguishes from sibling 'project_validate' by focusing on coverage, but lacks a specific verb like 'calculate' or 'generate'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'project_validate'. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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