find_gaps

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

The description is brief and does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. Since there are no annotations, it fails to inform the agent about side effects, read-only status, or expected output characteristics.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose, but it may be too terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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?

For a tool that finds gaps in a knowledge graph with two parameters and an output schema, the description lacks details on what constitutes a gap, how results are presented, and how to use the parameters correctly. It is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not; 'required_frameworks' and 'api_key' are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 tool finds gaps in the knowledge graph, specifying it looks for missing expected relationships or nodes. This conveys a specific purpose and distinguishes it from siblings that add nodes/edges or search.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like semantic_node_search or trace_compliance_chain. There is no mention of prerequisites or specific contexts.

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