get_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states that gaps are returned with status, but omits behavioral details such as read-only nature, default filtering behavior, side effects, or response structure. The description is minimally informative.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key output details. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

While the tool has only optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, it lacks details on response format, pagination limits, or error conditions, which would help an agent fully utilize the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds contextual value by explaining that gaps have statuses (open, dismissed, resolved), which directly relates to the filtering parameters. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 action (get), resource (code gaps), source (ADR Aggregator), and returned status types. The tool name 'get_gaps' is explicit and distinct from siblings like 'analyze_gaps', which likely imply deeper 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_gaps'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for its use, leaving the agent to infer implicitly.

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