sw_missing_slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and lives up to it. It discloses the return behavior (slots sorted by cost, each with 3-4 options), explains what is not included (sample size) and why, and clarifies the underlying logic. This is substantial transparency for a read-only tool.

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 with the purpose, then provides necessary context about the template and sample-size exclusion. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes value; only minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 output schema exists and the description covers the return behavior well, but the input parameters are under-specified. Given the complexity of the template and the workflow, the missing parameter semantics leaves the tool not fully self-contained.

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%, and the description does not explain what answered_design and answered_params mean, their format, or how they map to the slots. The parameter names give a hint, but the agent cannot reliably construct the input without further guidance.

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 identifies empty slots in a conclusion template and decides what to ask the user. It defines the template structure with bracketed slots and explains that empty slots become questions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sw_sample_size.

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 indicates when to use this tool: to determine what to actively ask the user. It also explicitly says not to ask for sample size and directs to sw_sample_size, offering an alternative. However, it doesn't systematically compare to all sibling tools or provide exclusions.

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