get_test_coverage

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags that the coverage is 'static' rather than runtime, but says nothing about whether it is a read-only listing, pagination or default result size behavior, what the result entries look like, or what happens if the workspace is unindexed.

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 clause with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the size reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing. A sentence more on usage and output would have been worth the space.

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 tool takes five optional parameters with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place behavior could be explained, and it stops at one fragment. An agent cannot tell what a covered/uncovered item contains, how large results are by default, or whether indexing is a prerequisite.

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 all five filters (limit, status, pathPrefix, projectName, workspacePath) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filter semantics or defaults beyond that, which meets the baseline of 3 but no more.

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 fragment identifies the resource (test coverage) and narrows it to classes and methods, and the qualifier 'static test reachability' distinguishes it from runtime coverage. But it never states the verb clearly enough to tell whether the tool reports, lists, or computes coverage, and no sibling such as get_affected_tests is mentioned.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_affected_tests or the architecture tools. The only implied usage comes from the covered/uncovered wording, and nothing tells an agent what preconditions (e.g. an existing index or scan) must hold.

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