identify_journey_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Find...', implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only nature, data effects, or authorization needs. This is insufficient for an AI agent to assess side effects.

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 5-word sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. While brevity is good, it does not earn its place by covering essential details, making it minimally acceptable.

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 has 2 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits what 'stages' refers to, how templates affect results, and what the output looks like, leaving the AI agent with insufficient context.

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 0% description coverage for its properties, and the tool description fails to explain the 'journey_template' enum values or the structure of 'date_range'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, missing critical parameter semantics.

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 'Find stages with missing feedback/issues' clearly indicates the tool identifies gaps in feedback across journey stages. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'identify_knowledge_gaps', which could be seen as overlapping.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'map_customer_journey' or 'identify_knowledge_gaps'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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