list_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the auth requirement (signed-in account) and explains the resolution semantics for domain vs scanId. However, it doesn't describe the return format (no output schema exists), pagination, or ordering of gaps, which would strengthen transparency for the agent.

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 two sentences and delivers substantial information in a compact form. It front-loads the core purpose before moving to usage details. Slightly dense but no wasted words; could arguably be considered concise for the amount of behavioral information conveyed.

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 read tool with no output schema and both parameters fully documented, the description does a good job: it specifies required auth, both invocation modes, and hints at the sibling tool for mutation. The main gap is not describing what the response looks like given there's no output schema, though the enumerated fields in the first sentence partially compensate.

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 covers both parameters at 100% (domain and scanId both get descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the disjunction ('pass a scanId OR a domain'), the fallback behavior (domain uses its newest audit), and the source of scanId (from list_audits). This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 what the tool does: lists the fix/action queue for a domain, enumerating exactly what fields each gap contains (gapKey, status, title, category, impact, effort, concrete fix). It's specific about verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like set_gap_status (which updates) and list_audits (which returns audits).

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?

Explicitly explains the two invocation modes (scanId OR domain) and how each resolves, tells the reader to use set_gap_status for updates (naming an alternative), and requires a signed-in account. This is strong when/when-not guidance.

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