conversation_gaps

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what the tool detects ('periods where you and a contact stopped talking') and what it returns ('gap duration and when it happened'), enhancing understanding of its behavioral output without redundancy.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context and output details in subsequent sentences. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by explaining what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned gaps) and potential limitations (e.g., data availability), which could be helpful for an agent despite the good annotations and schema coverage.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (contact, min_gap_days, limit) with their purposes and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('find', 'detects', 'shows') and resources ('longest silences in a conversation', 'gap duration and when it happened'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on conversation gaps rather than messages, contacts, or other conversation metrics, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for analyzing conversation patterns like 'falling-outs, busy periods, or drifting apart', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'streaks' or 'temporal_heatmap' for other temporal analyses). It provides some context but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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