gap_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states 'Read-only' and discloses the ordering behavior ('most-asked first') and an output field ('asked_count'). It does not mention auth, permissions, or error handling, but for a list tool, the key safety-relevant behavior (no mutation) is disclosed.

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 that front-load the purpose, then add filter details and read-only note. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and filters but omits semantics for the required app_id and the limit parameter. It also does not describe the return shape beyond asked_count, leaving incomplete context for an agent to use the tool autonomously.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains topic and status filters and enumerates valid statuses (open | resolved | promoted). However, it leaves app_id—the only required parameter—and limit unexplained, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 opens with 'List backlog gaps'—a specific verb and resource—and adds context ('fleet's shared queue', 'most-asked first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling gap_* tools that mutate or resolve gaps, making the read-only listing purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it lists gaps, supports topic/status filters, and is read-only. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, relying on sibling names (gap_resolve, gap_log) to imply distinctions.

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