ism_coverage_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the read-only nature ('Read') and parameter-specific behaviors (path resolution, filter effects), but doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects or mention auth/rate limits, which is acceptable for a read tool.

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 concise with two sentences covering purpose, returns, and parameter behavior. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not explain return values. It fully explains both parameters, default behaviors, and filtering, making it complete for a read operation.

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 adds significant meaning: it explains that project_path defaults to cwd and walks up, and status_filter narrows the controls map to specific statuses while summary remains unfiltered. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it reads the project's coverage manifest and lists return types (scope, summary counts, curated entries). This distinct verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like ism_coverage_gaps or ism_coverage_upsert.

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 omit project_path (walks up from cwd) and how status_filter narrows results, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, such as contrasting with ism_coverage_gaps for gap analysis.

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