detect_gaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, how it determines 'unintentional' gaps, or any side effects. The agent cannot assess safety or side effects from this description.

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 a single, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place by conveying the essential purpose, but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing 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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., list of gaps, locations, durations). It also doesn't mention any assumptions about the timeline state or file validity. The tool's simplicity reduces the burden, but missing output behavior and prerequisites makes it incomplete.

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 captures parameter meanings. The tool description adds no extra nuance beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not degrade but also does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 verb 'find', the resource 'gaps', the context 'timeline', and the qualifier 'unintentional', which distinguishes it from siblings like fill_gaps and detect_duplicates. It precisely conveys the tool's single responsibility without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., fill_gaps, detect_silence_candidates). It lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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