Test Coverage Report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether coverage is computed by executing the suite (slow, side-effecting) or read from prior results, what configuration it requires, or where output lands — all material for a coverage tool.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally fine. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity — nothing was added that earns its place as guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description still omits parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral traits for a tool with zero annotation coverage. For a two-param tool with no annotations and no schema docs, this is too thin to call complete.

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 0% for both parameters. The description never mentions 'format' (html default) or 'output_dir' (coverage default), so it adds no meaning beyond the bare property names. The word 'report' weakly hints at a file artifact but specifies neither format nor location.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Generate test coverage report'), so the agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling test tools (test_run_phpunit, test_run_kernel, test_list_suites), so an agent must infer whether this runs tests or merely reports on existing coverage.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite mention (e.g., needing a prior test run or xdebug/PCOV), and no alternatives named among the dense test_* sibling set. The agent is left to guess the ordering constraints relative to test_run_phpunit.

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