mark_gap_filled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Mark a knowledge gap as filled' without explaining side effects, persistence, permissions, return values, or any state changes. The mutation-like nature is implied but not detailed.

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 a single, concise sentence that avoids redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and condition, with no unnecessary details.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what happens when marking a gap as filled, such as return behavior or side effects. It only states the action and condition, leaving important behavioral context missing.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (topic and evidence) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's action: 'Mark a knowledge gap as filled' with a specific resource 'knowledge gap' and a condition 'when the user demonstrates understanding'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'explain_change' or 'save_conventions', which serve different purposes.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this tool when the user demonstrates understanding. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is sufficient for guiding basic usage.

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