list_knowledge_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavior: the tool reads from a shared API endpoint when available and authorized, otherwise falls back to the local machine's log. It also states that results are ranked by frequency, though it omits return format details.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and audience, and every sentence adds useful information about what is reviewed or where the data comes from.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, audience, data source, authorization fallback, and ranking. The main gap is that the 'limit' parameter is not explained.

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?

There is one parameter, 'limit', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter name and default are self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 a specific verb and resource: reviewing documentation gaps based on unhelpful or empty queries ranked by frequency. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_documents or recent_failures, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context by stating the tool is 'For the API owner' and explains the data-source selection rule: shared GET /gaps when authorized, otherwise local log. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives.

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