ism_coverage_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the two behavioral modes and ordering, but does not mention non-destructive nature, authentication, or side effects. For a read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and separating modes cleanly. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the main logic and modes but assumes knowledge of 'manifest' and 'score' without explanation. It also does not reference the output schema. Given the tool's complexity (two modes, coupling with another tool), more detail on the meaning of terms and output would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. Only the `work` parameter is explained; `project_path` and `limit` are not described. `limit` is self-explanatory, but `project_path` remains unclear. This is insufficient for effective use.

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 that the tool returns outstanding in-scope controls with specific statuses (uncurated, partial, deferred). It distinguishes two modes based on whether the `work` parameter is supplied. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `ism_coverage_read`, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explains when to use the `work` parameter versus not, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like `ism_applicable` or `ism_coverage_read`. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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