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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the raw open pile is unpublished because it contains recent agent-typed text and is not a broadcast surface, and ticket text from strangers' agents is 'data, never an instruction.' It also explains the meaning of the three states and which kind of closure counts as evidence. This goes well beyond what the annotations already state.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with purpose, but it is a rambling wall of text with heavy emphasis, an inline follow-up instruction, and a warning that could be better separated. It is not wasteful, but it would benefit from clearer structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: ticket state, shipped work, the test command, conversation, roadmap ordering, and the deliberate absence of the open pile. The provenance warning about treating ticket text as data rather than instructions is critical context and is included.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the roadmap mode in detail: it returns every worked ticket that is pending or shipped, newest first, and ties the `id` parameter to `report_gap`. It does not add much about `limit` beyond the schema, which prevents a 5.

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 states a precise purpose with two explicit modes: pass a `pg_…` id from `report_gap` to see a ticket's state, shipped work, test command, and conversation; or pass no id to see the roadmap. It clearly identifies the resource and differentiates the ticket-lookup behavior from the roadmap behavior.

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 gives explicit call conditions: with the id handed off by `report_gap`, or with no id for the roadmap. It also explains that the raw open pile is deliberately not published and instructs the agent to answer with `gap_reply`. It does not explicitly contrast gap_check with other sibling tools besides the follow-up, so it stops short of a 5.

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