validate-gap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not state whether this is a read-only comparison, what a detected gap means, or what action follows. It only restates that a comparison happens, adding no traits beyond the name.

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 definition is a single sentence with zero padding, which is structurally front-loaded. But its brevity stems from under-specification rather than economy, so it is adequate at best.

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 presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should do more. It never clarifies the gap-analysis semantics or workflow position, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently against its siblings.

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 0%, and the description only loosely hints at implementation_summary via "resumo fornecido da implementação". The required feature_name is never explained, nor is the expected format or relationship between the two inputs, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a verb ("Compara") and the resources being compared (approvals, tasks, an implementation summary), so the general purpose is discernible. However, it never explains what a "gap" is or how this differs from siblings like validate-spec or validate-design, leaving the specific intent vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The agent must infer its place in the spec workflow entirely, despite a crowded set of near-named validation siblings.

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