ism_applicable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: hybrid retrieval (semantic + FTS5 BM25 with RRF), score normalization in [0,1], and validation of tags via ism_list_sections. It also clarifies maturity's limited applicability.

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 well-structured with an initial purpose sentence followed by method and parameter details. It is concise but packs necessary information, though it could be slightly shorter.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, many siblings, output schema exists), the description covers essential behavioral aspects and parameter semantics. It mentions the output score interpretation but could have provided more detail on the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all parameters: work (free-text), classification (valid values listed), maturity (with caveat), tags (validated), paths (lexical expansion), limit, verbose. Only limit and verbose lack explicit explanation but are common.

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's purpose: 'Rank ISM controls relevant to a free-text description of planned or current work.' It specifies the verb (rank) and resource (ISM controls), and distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the hybrid retrieval method and RRF.

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 provides usage guidance for each optional parameter, especially maturity: 'leave it unset unless scoping to the Essential Eight.' It explains the effect of filters, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ism_search or ism_coverage_read.

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