coverage_gaps_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the report contents (GAP/PARTIAL techniques, missing sources, remediation steps) and filterability. However, it does not disclose the default status behavior (all non-COVERED per schema) and the phrase 'every technique that is GAP or PARTIAL' sits slightly awkwardly with that default.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output content, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or 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?

For a 4-parameter reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output and filtering semantics well. It is slightly incomplete because it omits the prerequisite relationship to coverage_assess_session and does not differentiate from overlapping gap-report siblings, though the schema compensates for the prerequisite.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies; the schema already documents session_id, filters, values, and limit. The description only adds that results are filterable by tactic/status, which mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('coverage session'), and defines the deliverable: every GAP or PARTIAL technique with missing data sources and remediation steps. This content and 'detailed' wording distinguish it from summary/top-gap siblings.

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?

It implies use after a coverage session and shows filtering options, but does not state when to prefer it over sibling tools like identify_gaps, get_top_gaps, or coverage_summary, nor give exclusions. The prerequisite is only present in the schema, not the description.

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