find_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of a per-gap "suggested next action" and the `clean` flag semantics, but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant return-value context rather than new behavioral disclosure.

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 compact sentences with the outcome stated first and the `clean` flag second; nothing is padded. The first sentence is somewhat florid ("everything standing between this repo and...") but still front-loads the payoff.

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?

An output schema exists so return format need not be explained, but the sole input parameter is undocumented everywhere and, among eleven siblings with overlapping reporting/linting purposes, no routing context is offered. For a tool in this dense a family, that leaves real gaps for the agent.

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 single parameter `kinds` has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot tell what values are valid or what filtering it performs. With low coverage and no compensating text, the description fails to carry parameter meaning.

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 conveys that this tool surfaces outstanding gaps blocking verified/signed-off requirements, which is a recognizable resource. But the framing is metaphorical ("everything standing between this repo and...") rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, and it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as coverage_report, lint_requirements, or evidence_report.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative tool named. The only implicit signal is "no blocking gaps remain," which hints at a pre-sign-off check but leaves the agent to guess when this is preferred over coverage_report or lint_requirements.

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