List knowledge gaps

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

The description appropriately indicates a read-only listing operation via 'List' and 'recorded', consistent with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations. It also adds the plan requirement, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 compact, using two sentences to convey purpose, relation to another tool, and plan constraints. No unnecessary words or redundant schema restatement.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's primary purpose and integrates well with sibling tools, though it does not describe the output shape. Since no output schema is provided, a brief note on returned fields could enhance completeness, but it is not strictly necessary.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, and the prose adds meaningful defaults for days and limit, clarifies include_resolved is off by default, and points users to list_websites for website_id. This exceeds mere schema repetition.

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 the tool lists knowledge gaps recorded by Asyntai, defined as real visitor questions the chatbot could not answer. This distinguishes it from related tools like list_knowledge and search_knowledge_base, and explicitly connects it to add_knowledge_text for follow-up.

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 practical guidance by identifying that the tool is for finding gaps to fill with add_knowledge_text and notes the Standard plan requirement. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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