template_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: it reads `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE` or `.gitlab/issue_templates` from the checkout, performs a bidirectional gap analysis, and explains what each type of gap signifies. This transparency helps the agent anticipate the tool's findings without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the underlying mechanism and the two types of findings. It uses a clean bullet-like presentation for the gap directions. While it is slightly verbose, each sentence contributes meaningful information, and nothing is redundant or wasted.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity: it reads template files and ticket data, performs comparative analysis, and has an output schema to handle results. The description covers the input behavior, the analysis logic, and the significance of the two gap directions, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to interpret its output. The only notable omission is explicit parameter meaning, but given the output schema exists and the overall logic is well explained, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has three optional parameters (repo, project, tracker) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining what these parameters mean. However, the description never mentions them explicitly; it only references 'the checkout,' leaving it unclear how the parameters select which repository or project to examine. The agent would have to infer the parameter semantics from the tool name and context, which is insufficient given the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: comparing the issue template a repository declares with the tickets it actually receives. It uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Reads', 'lines up') and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by noting it is the only tool that reads what the project said it wanted, rather than only what it does. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function or how it differs from nearby 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?

The description explicitly gives usage context: 'Use this when asked how to improve a board rather than one ticket.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining it reads declared intent versus observed behavior. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and effectively excludes the wrong scenario (improving a single ticket), making it easy for an agent to choose correctly.

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