gap_list

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it proactively discloses pagination behavior (returns {items, next_cursor}), the ordering ('most-asked first'), filter semantics, and the meaning of asked_count. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that adds value on top of 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 entire description is two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, then efficiently packing pagination, filtering, status values, ordering, and the read-only property with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 large toolset and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core behaviors well but is incomplete. The required app_id and the limit parameter are undocumented, and there is no output schema or mention of the item structure beyond asked_count. For a tool that reports 'what we don't know yet,' the agent still needs to guess what each item contains, making it not fully self-sufficient.

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, but it does not. It explains cursor usage ('pass the returned next_cursor as cursor') and mentions filtering by topic/status, yet it omits the required app_id entirely and never explains the limit parameter. For a required parameter with zero schema documentation, this leaves a critical gap that the agent cannot infer reliably.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('List backlog gaps') plus a sorting qualifier ('most-asked first') and a memorable metaphor ('the fleet's shared what we don't know yet queue'). This clearly distinguishes gap_list from the many other list-style siblings (grove_list_channels, store_list, fork_list) and from the writing tools in its own gap_* family (gap_log, gap_resolve, gap_delete).

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 gives clear usage context: how to paginate (pass next_cursor back as cursor) and how to filter (by topic and/or status with the allowed status values). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name an alternative tool, but for a pure listing tool the usage is self-evident from the resource name and the context described.

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