gap_report

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by enumerating the item status taxonomy (fail / review / todo / unknown), the execution modes (API, BROWSER, ARTIFACT, MANUAL), that next_steps indicates ordering, and that include_info controls non-blocking background notes. This is substantive behavioral disclosure of what the report contains, though it doesn't touch cost or pagination.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by a compact gate legend and a clearly delineated Args block. Nearly every sentence carries information, with only minor redundancy between the prose and the Args section.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, yet the description still characterizes the payload (statuses, fields, execution mode, Steamworks location, next_steps). Combined with the gate definitions and full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path is defined as the folder holding steamworks.yaml, gate is bounded to 0-3 with a stated default of all, and include_info is explained as adding background notes that never block. All three parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a specific verb+resource: reporting what is still missing before each release gate and how each item gets done. A reader immediately understands the tool surfaces blocking gaps, distinct from mutating siblings like apply or set_field. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the 'status' or 'validate' siblings, keeping it at a 4.

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 gate model (0=prerequisites, 1=store page review, 2=build review, 3=release) gives useful context for scoping the call, and 'default all' clarifies behavior. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for gap_report versus status, validate, or scan_project, so selection guidance is only implied.

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