check_capability_gap

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the output format (JSON array of 5 recommended skills with fields) and the ranking by relevance. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is clearly read-only analysis. Could mention that it does not install anything.

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 plus a usage note. Every sentence adds value: what it does, output format, when to use, when not to use. No unnecessary words.

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 3 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the output structure and usage boundaries. Could mention if there are side effects or rate limits, but not essential given the tool's nature.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). Description adds value by providing concrete examples for task and current_tools, and explaining the agent_type enum. This helps the agent format inputs correctly.

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?

Description states it analyzes tasks agent cannot complete and suggests skills to fill the gap. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_skills (when you know what skill you need) and list_categories (general browsing).

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?

Explicitly says use this when you encounter a task requiring capabilities you lack, and provides clear exclusions: do not use for general browsing (use list_categories) or when you already know what skill you need (use search_skills).

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