skill_gaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden—it clearly states this is a non-destructive read/analysis tool that returns prioritized data without side effects, using severity emojis to clarify output structure. No contradictions with missing annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, uses emojis and a clear sequence (show → run → return → pairs) without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two simple parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of a domain gap tool, the description covers purpose, output format, usage pattern, and relationship to sibling. Could add a note about what instance_id must contain (but schema already has it).

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by naming the output structure (prioritized list) and explaining how min_failures influences results, enriching the schema's minimal descriptions. The description does not repeat schema details but contextualizes parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool identifies 'knowledge blind spots' using specific categories (unresolved failures, missing attribution, etc.) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'brain_coverage' by noting they pair for a full picture.

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 suggests running periodically and points to brain_coverage for full health picture, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or list alternatives beyond brain_coverage. It implies usage through verbs like 'find where to focus' and 'pairs with'.

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