analyze_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses scanning actions (file references, package.json, architectural patterns) and reporting to ADR Aggregator. While it doesn't detail permissions or side effects, it gives a clear behavioral picture without contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, then enumerates gap types in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, no extraneous text. Efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fails to explain what the tool returns to the caller. It only says 'Reports gaps to ADR Aggregator,' leaving the return value ambiguous. For a complex analysis tool, this is a significant omission.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., projectPath, excludePatterns). It simply reiterates the general scanning behavior.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans local codebase and ADRs to detect bidirectional gaps, listing two specific types (ADR-to-code and Code-to-ADR). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_adr_timeline or analyze_content_security.

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?

Description implies usage when gaps between ADRs and code need detection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_gaps for reading existing gaps, validate_adr for validating ADRs). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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