audit_rule_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact that this tool writes an output file ('write a stable JSON report'). It does not state whether output_path is overwritten, whether the run is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens when no bundles exist, which are meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating action, input source, and deliverable. It is appropriately sized, though it could have spent one more clause on the behavior gap noted above without becoming bloated.

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 values need no explanation, and all parameters are documented. What is missing is the behavioral context a mutation tool without annotations needs: overwrite semantics for output_path, required prior state of out_dir, and result when zero gaps are found.

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 all three parameters (out_dir, max_files, output_path) documented including defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the out/ directory and report-writing concepts already in the schema, adding no extra meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('audit rule gaps from existing out/ bundles') plus the side effect of writing a report, which is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings like list_filings or get_indicator. However, 'rule gaps' is unexplained domain jargon, so the agent knows the action but not precisely what a gap is.

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 phrase 'from existing out/ bundles' implies a prerequisite (bundles must already be extracted), but the description never states when to run this versus other tools or what to do if bundles are absent. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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