list_gaps_by_priority

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by describing the ranking logic. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or input validation. Given the read-only nature, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single 12-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and ranking formula. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context. The tool's simplicity is undermined by the missing semantics for 'vault_path', making it incomplete for confident agent invocation.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. 'vault_path' and 'limit' are left completely unexplained, forcing the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. The description fails to add any semantic value beyond the schema.

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 returns gaps ranked by a specific priority formula (frequency × diversity × novelty), identifying a unique resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_gaps' which likely just list gaps without ranking.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like 'find_gaps' or 'export_review_queue', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context.

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