coverage_gaps

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

Annotations disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not clarify what a 'gap' represents, whether this is a report, or what the output rows mean.

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?

It is short, but short is not concise when it carries zero information. This is under-specification, not efficient writing.

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 with three optional parameters, an output schema, and many closely related siblings, a single noun phrase is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, expected output, or relationship to coverage_summary/coverage_tutors.

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%, with meaningful descriptions for limit, subject, and min_tutors. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters well.

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 is exactly the tool name: 'Coverage Gaps', with no verb, no resource, and no behavior. It is a tautology and gives an agent no way to know what the tool computes or how to distinguish it from coverage_summary or coverage_tutors.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its sibling coverage tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, so the agent must guess from the name alone.

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