list_context_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial domain behavior beyond that: the two gap categories (missing vs review with deleted_document_id), the meaning of a null `answer` for answered gaps, that `counts` spans the whole project, and that a gap leaves the list once its record is published. This is exactly the kind of state-model context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and usage before the denser field-semantics paragraph, and every sentence carries information. The middle paragraph is long and packs several distinct concepts (missing vs review, revision fields, answer ownership, counts scope) without breaking them out, which costs some scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the fields each gap carries, what `answer` means, and the scope of `counts`, plus pagination via cursor. For a three-parameter read tool this is complete enough that an agent can call it and interpret the result without further probing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does: project_id is sourced ('from list_projects()'), status enumerates its values plus the default 'open', and cursor is defined as 'next_cursor from the previous page'. The status semantics for answered/dismissed are partly inferable from the surrounding body text on resolution, which reinforces the enum values.

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 ('List a client project's Context gaps') and immediately defines the resource in domain terms ('the questions its Context can't answer yet, written to be asked to the consultant'), with an inline example. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like answer_context_gap and dismiss_context_gap.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the user wants to find or fill what is missing from a client's Context, or asks what Unilytics doesn't know about a client yet.' It also relates the list to the follow-up tools by explaining that each gap carries the published_revision_number and rev those tools take. No explicit exclusion or 'do not use when' clause, so not a 5.

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