analyze_github_project_state_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the phrase 'preserving item evidence,' which hints that findings retain source evidence but does not explain the shape of results or how pagination/limits behave.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core purpose leads. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the documentation gaps noted elsewhere.

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 tool taking 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. Key configuration knobs like completedStatusNames and includeCompletedForAssignee, which materially change what counts as a gap, are left undocumented.

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% across 8 parameters. The description gestures at the 'Status' and 'assignee' concepts, loosely matching statusFieldName and assigneeFieldNames, but says nothing about owner, number, first, includeArchived, completedStatusNames, or includeCompletedForAssignee, so most parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (authorized GitHub Project snapshot) and names the concrete outputs it looks for: missing Status and missing assignee gaps. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling analyze_github_project_reconciliation or get_github_project_snapshot, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'authorized ... snapshot' implies a prerequisite (a snapshot must exist and be accessible), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the reconciliation/snapshot siblings. An agent is left to infer the workflow context.

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