get_cover

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and 'Reads' does signal a non-destructive operation plus it discloses the returned content shape. However, it says nothing about behavior when cover/config.yml or the logo file is absent, whether defaults are returned, or how 'file status' is represented, which are the likely points of confusion for this 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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields grouped in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing 'logo image file status' clause is slightly vague for the space it occupies.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is read and roughly what comes back. The remaining gap is behavior on missing config or logo files, which matters given there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'project_dir' parameter, including its fallback to EVOX_PROJECT_DIR or cwd, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about path resolution or scoping beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Reads cover/config.yml') and enumerates the content returned (header, logo dimensions, footer, logo image file status), so an agent can tell it apart from the mutating sibling update_cover. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_songbook, which reads the broader songbook config, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The read-only nature implies it should be called before inspecting or modifying cover settings, but the agent is left to infer that update_cover is the counterpart and that get_songbook covers a different scope.

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