get_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the kind of information returned (gaps in connectivity) and its interpretive value, but it does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether the results are sorted, limited, or include specific metadata. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states what the tool returns, and the second adds crucial context. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and the output schema (signal present) covers return values. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation leaves a gap in understanding how to invoke the tool effectively. The conceptual context is well explained, but operational details are incomplete.

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 only parameter, 'seit_stunden', is not described anywhere in the tool description (schema coverage 0%). The description does not compensate by explaining how the time range affects the results or what values are expected. An agent cannot infer the meaning of this parameter from the description alone.

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 that the tool returns time periods when the collector was not connected to the broker, which is a specific and meaningful resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like find_silent by explaining the difference between 'device is silent' and 'collector not listening', though it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'list' or 'return'.

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 explains when to use the tool: to separate cases where a device is silent from cases where the collector was not listening. This provides a clear use-case and helps the agent choose it over alternatives like find_silent, even though no explicit alternative names are mentioned.

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