list_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states that the tool returns all gap memories, orders them by severity, and includes their location. This conveys the output behavior well for a zero-parameter read operation, though it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The invocation condition is front-loaded, and the return details are stated efficiently. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context: what the tool finds, what it returns, and how results are ordered. Nothing essential for calling it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion by referencing nonexistent arguments.

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 known missing, risky, or incomplete parts of the repository' and 'returns all gap memories.' The description clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_gap (single item) and search_memory (general search) by framing it as a comprehensive listing operation.

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?

Provides a clear trigger condition: 'Call when you want to find known missing, risky, or incomplete parts of the repository.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_gap for retrieving a single gap memory, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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