coverage_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the definition of the result set — not that it is a read-only query, whether it is exhaustive or paginated, or how 'accepted' vs. proposed links are treated. This is the main weakness for a tool an agent may call blindly.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, which is proportionate to a zero-parameter tool. It is a noun phrase rather than a front-loaded verb clause, which slightly weakens the opening.

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 presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values, and no parameters need explaining, so the remaining gap is behavioral and usage context. For a simple read tool that gap is tolerable but still leaves the agent guessing about scope and semantics of 'accepted'.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. An empty schema leaves no ambiguity for the agent to resolve.

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 fragment 'Requirements with no accepted link yet' identifies the resource set returned but supplies no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists gaps, counts them, or computes a coverage metric. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_requirement and propose_link by subject matter, but the operation itself is only implied.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as trace_matrix or get_requirement, and no preconditions are given. Usage can only be inferred from the phrase 'no accepted link yet'.

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