identify_gaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return format (per-technique rule counts and zero-coverage gap IDs) and the special no-argument mode behavior. It does not address safety, auth requirements, invalid-profile handling, or pagination, which keeps it at a 3.

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 primary purpose, followed by return semantics and parameter guidance. No redundancy with the schema and no filler; it is slightly less tight than an ideal definition only because the parameter guidance repeats what the schema already says.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does explain what the return value contains and covers both invocation modes. But it does not clarify what the 'coverage overview' includes, what an invalid profile produces, or how it differs from the closely related coverage/gap siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only mild reinforcement ('Use source_type to scope to a specific rule source') and the no-argument overview behavior is already captured in the profile parameter description. No meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Find detection gaps') and enumerates the valid threat profiles, which an agent can act on directly. It also discloses the return payload (per-technique rule counts, zero-coverage gap IDs). It does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like analyze_coverage or get_top_gaps, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: use source_type to scope to a rule source, and call with no arguments to get a profile list plus coverage overview. However, it never states when to choose this tool over the many close siblings (analyze_coverage, get_coverage_summary, get_top_gaps, coverage_gaps_detail), leaving tool-selection largely implied.

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