find_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it 'returns LLM-suggested missing pieces' but does not say whether it reads wiki content on demand, whether it can call external knowledge, or what side effects or costs exist. The behavioral surface is largely undisclosed.

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 compact and clear, with a well-chosen example that adds meaning without bloating the text. It could be slightly tighter, but the two sentences work well together and there is no wasted repetition.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is close to being sufficient for the core task. However, it lacks information such as how the topic is matched against wiki content, what happens when there are no gaps, and whether the operation depends on existing wiki resources.

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 single parameter 'topic' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not clarify what format 'topic' should take (e.g., page title, natural language phrase, or filename). The output example implies the topic is user-supplied, but provides no parameter-level guidance.

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 states a specific action ('find gaps') on a concrete resource ('the wiki's coverage of a topic') and clarifies the output with a useful example. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like find_orphans or find_contradictions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use case (identifying missing wiki coverage for a topic) is implied clearly, and the example output helps set expectations. However, the description does not state when not to use it or mention related alternatives such as synthesize_topic or find_contradictions.

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