Reads requirement-to-case mappings and recorded outcomes from a run or coverage folder, explicitly flagging unmapped requirements and not-run cases while avoiding claims of business acceptance.
Read requirement-to-case mappings and recorded outcomes from a run or generated coverage folder. Unmapped requirements and not-run cases are explicit. Mapping does not prove business acceptance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine interpretation context — unmapped requirements and not-run cases are surfaced explicitly, and mappings do not imply business acceptance — but says nothing about return shape, size, or behavior when the directory is absent.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core read scope front-loaded and the caveat last. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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?
For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is read and the important interpretive limitation. The remaining gap is default behavior when 'directory' is omitted, which is minor but relevant for invocation.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'directory' parameter, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'from a run or generated coverage folder' hints that the path points at such a folder, but it never says the parameter is optional, what the default is, or whether a run identifier is accepted.
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?
Specific verb ('Read') plus a clearly named resource (requirement-to-case mappings and recorded outcomes) and scope (from a run or generated coverage folder). It does not distinguish itself from likely siblings such as report_get or requirements_read, so an agent must still infer which tool owns traceability vs reporting.
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 implied by 'from a run or generated coverage folder', so the agent can infer the tool operates on artifacts produced by test_run/coverage generation. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative (report_get, requirements_read) to route between.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.