nucleo-gap-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the 'Newest first' ordering and the per-record fields (need, block, workaround, page, count, first/last date). It does not state whether the list is complete or bounded in size, which matters for a no-parameter tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with what the list contains and followed by the record shape and sort order. The parenthetical field enumeration is dense but every item earns its place; only the 'reported with gap-report:' phrasing is slightly awkward.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the record's fields, the date format (Y-m-d), and the sort order. Only the absence of any statement about list size or truncation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, but the description spends its parameter-adjacent detail describing return fields rather than input semantics. The field list is useful, yet it is return-value content the agent would otherwise get from an output schema, not input clarification.

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 resource: the list of things the design needed that Nucleo could not do, with the exact fields each entry carries. It ties the data back to its producer ('reported with gap-report'), which implicitly distinguishes this read tool from the sibling that creates gaps, though it does not name an explicit competing list tool.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read-side companion to nucleo-gap-report. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause, no exclusion, and no mention of what to do if the list is empty.

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