ism_coverage_read

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

The description states 'Never writes', which aligns with the `readOnlyHint` annotation. It further details that `status_filter` narrows the controls map but leaves the summary unfiltered, adding behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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 and well-structured. The core function is stated upfront, followed by succinct parameter explanations and a clear sibling alternative reference. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, and alternatives. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: `project_path` behavior (walk-up from cwd) and `status_filter` acceptable values and effect (filters controls map, not summary). This compensates the missing schema descriptions completely.

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 reads the project's coverage manifest, specifying the resource (`.ism-coverage.toml`) and the action. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool, `ism_coverage_gaps, by clarifying that this tool returns curated entries while the sibling shows missing items.

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 tells when to use this tool versus the alternative `ism_coverage_gaps`. It also explains the behavior when `project_path` is omitted (walks up from cwd) and fails if not found, providing clear context for usage.

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