Get Timeline Gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful pagination behavior (50-item default page, follow pagination.nextOffset), but says nothing about the return shape or how gaps are ordered beyond what the output schema provides.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The scoping detail (page size and pagination) is front-loaded and the use case follows immediately.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the essential pagination caveat. It could note that the active sequence is used by default and how windowing interacts with gaps, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults and bounds. The description repeats the default page size and nextOffset hint but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Find ... gaps ... on the timeline between clips') and gives scope ('bounded page of gaps'). It is clear on its own but does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_timeline_summary, audit_timeline_health, or detect_silence, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Offers implied usage context ('identifying where content is missing or where clips can be tightened') but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance. Adequate for selection in a crowded timeline-analysis family, but leaves the agent to guess versus sibling tools.

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