commerce_assortment_gap_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it fails to disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, rate-limited, or has other side effects.

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 concise: two sentences for action explanation plus two brief bullet points for arguments. It is front-loaded with the action name and routing mechanism, with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks overall context: it does not explain what 'assortment_gap_analysis' does, when to invoke it, or what input format is expected beyond free text. The routing detail is helpful, but the tool remains largely opaque.

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 describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string for structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide examples or details on expected JSON structure.

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 states it runs a specific commerce action 'assortment_gap_analysis' but does not explain what the analysis does. Among siblings, there is a similar 'product_assortment_gap_analysis' tool, yet no differentiation is provided. The purpose is vaguely defined as executing a domain agent action.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling commerce tools, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks any usage context.

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