Phenomenai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the gaps are 'AI-recommended' and 'waiting to be named,' which adds some context about the source and state of the data. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data format, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that directly explain the tool's function without unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and sibling tools that might overlap, it lacks depth on behavioral aspects and usage context, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any missing param info, making a baseline score of 4 appropriate as it adds value without redundancy.

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's purpose: retrieving 'proposed gaps in the AI Dictionary' which are 'AI-recommended areas where the dictionary is missing terms.' It uses specific verbs ('Get') and identifies the resource ('gaps'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_proposals' or 'propose_term', which might have overlapping domains.

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. Sibling tools like 'check_proposals' or 'search_dictionary' might serve similar purposes, but the description offers no context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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