skills_gap_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It explains the tool returns missing skills with suggestions, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or data handling. Still, it gives a clear behavioral summary.

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?

Two sentences, but the first is a grammatical fragment. It is reasonably concise but could be better structured and more informative without adding length.

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 low complexity (2 params, no required, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter usage and output format. Could be more complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions scope options (overall, job, starred) but does not explicitly map them to parameters job_id and starred. The meaning of defaults (job_id=0, starred=false) is unclear. More detail is needed.

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 reports missing skills with three scope options (overall, for a job, across starred jobs) and provides suggestions. It is distinct from sibling tools like add_jobs or analyze_trends.

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 implies usage scenarios (overall, job-specific, starred jobs) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_trends. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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