Skill Gap

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains return values (matchPct, map of skills, missing skills ranked by impact). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, and description does not contradict it.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose, second details outputs, third gives usage guidelines. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters and output schema present, the description fully explains what the tool returns and when to use it. Sibling tools provide context. No gaps.

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?

No parameters defined, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description has no need to add param info.

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 analyzes the gap between the authenticated user's current skills and desired role requirements in the live market. It uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('gap'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'skill_impact'.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases ('what should I learn next?', 'how close am I to senior PM roles?') and tells when NOT to use it ('Not for simulating...'), directing to alternative 'skill_impact'. Also mentions 'Pro tier' as context.

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