cms_gap_report

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It reveals it produces a report combining two data sources, but omits crucial details: read-only or mutating? Pagination behavior? Does it require prior calls to other tools? The lack of side-effect, auth, or response-format disclosure limits the agent's ability to predict usage consequences.

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 sentence—efficient and to the point. It could be slightly restructured to separate the two report components, but overall it avoids wordiness. No wasted content.

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 only one simple parameter, the tool's purpose is compound (gap analysis + risk register) and there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the returned data looks like, how rows are organized, or how the two parts interrelate. For a report-generating tool that seems to combine two distinct outputs, a more detailed description is warranted for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 single 'limit' parameter is fully described in the schema ('Max rows (default 50)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning—it doesn't clarify which part of the report the limit applies to (gap rows, risk rows, or combined). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 produces a 'coverage gap report' combining requirements with no candidate document match and a Bangladesh risk-register summary. This distinguishes it from simpler listing tools (cms_list_requirements) and single-purpose tools (cms_risk_lookup), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like cms_coverage_scan or cms_risk_lookup. The description does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or scenarios where the gap report is appropriate/inappropriate.

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