get_top_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior: returns only IDs, returns a top-5 subset, and is lightweight (~300 bytes). It does not explain the exact meaning of 'uncovered (or least-covered)' or the response format, but it gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main function is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies output scope and relationship to a sibling tool. Every clause 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers what it returns, how many items, and when to use it. Minor ambiguity remains about whether results are ordered or what the exact list format is, but the description is adequately complete for an agent to select and call the tool.

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% and the schema already documents threat_profile, including valid example values. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: get the top 5 uncovered or least-covered technique IDs for a threat profile. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling identify_gaps by calling itself a fast triage signal and noting that it returns only IDs.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: as a fast triage signal before calling identify_gaps for full detail. This names the alternative and gives a clear condition, leaving little to inference.

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