get_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to repeat them. It adds context about returning statuses and emphasizing 'current' data, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond 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 concise—two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. The main purpose is immediately clear, and the additional detail about return statuses is relevant and non-redundant.

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 the tool's simplicity (a read-only getter with three straightforward parameters), the description adequately covers its function and output. It does not need to explain parameters (schema does that) or side effects (annotations do that). The description is complete for an agent to decide and invoke it.

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 provides full coverage for all three parameters (projectPath, includeResolved, includeDismissed) with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it remains at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('code gaps'), and a source ('ADR Aggregator'), and elaborates on the purpose with 'for tracking and management.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_gaps' which imply analysis rather than retrieval.

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 implies usage for retrieving current gaps but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'current' and 'tracking and management' hint at a retrieval vs. analysis distinction, but the guidance is not explicit.

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