raw_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes matching behavior (frontmatter sources and inline raw references), exclusions (parsed artifacts), and output (sorted by recency/size plus coverage ratio). No contradictions.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and no wasted words.

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 covers purpose, matching method, exclusions, and output. Although no output schema is provided, it mentions returned items and coverage ratio. For a reporting tool, this is sufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about sort options (recency/size) aligning with the enum, and implies limit defaults. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3.

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 reports which raw files are not referenced by any wiki page, answering 'what should I compile next?'. It specifies matching frontmatter 'sources' and inline 'raw/...' references, and that parsed artifacts are excluded. This distinctively sets it apart from siblings like raw_list and raw_ingest.

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?

The description explicitly answers 'what should I compile next?', indicating when to use. It clarifies that parsed artifacts are excluded. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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