Cobertura do acervo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: it reveals the underlying artifacts read (COBERTURA.md, PROGRESSO.md, _falhas.jsonl) and enumerates the reported fields, so the agent knows this is a local-state diagnostic rather than a live query.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is produced and backed by a parenthetical of concrete outputs. The embedded file names are semi-implementation detail but serve as evidence of what is being read, not filler.

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 no output schema, the description must sketch the return value, and it does (commit, data do sync, escopo, totais) while framing the tool as a read-only coverage check. What the 'recorte' filters actually do is left to the 100%-covered schema, which is reasonable.

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% with 6 optional filter parameters, each documented with examples and one enum. The description only gestures at them through 'recorte' and 'escopo' without explaining how uf/tipo/orgao/esfera/tribunal/municipio narrow the slice, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Mostra') and a specific resource (lacunas de um recorte plus local index state: commit, sync date, scope, totals). This clearly separates it from the retrieval siblings (buscar, obter, facetas, autoria), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should call this to check coverage gaps or index freshness. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no exclusion criteria, and no pointer to a sibling for the alternative case.

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