gap_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that repeated asks increment asked_count instead of duplicating, that asked_count serves as a priority signal, and it specifies the return shape. This is strong transparency for a simple tool, though it omits potential errors or prerequisites.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence serves a purpose: action, behavioral nuance, and return value. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core action, dedup semantics, and return value, which is solidly complete. The only gap is the unexplained app_id parameter and a lack of error/edge-case details, but overall it is sufficient for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that topic+question form the deduplication key, which adds meaning. However, the app_id parameter is completely unaddressed in the description, leaving its purpose and expected format ambiguous. Partial compensation earns a 3.

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+resource pair: 'Log or bump a "we don't know this yet" entry.' It clearly defines the tool's action (creating or incrementing) and its resource (gap entries), and the upsert semantics distinguish it from sibling gap_* tools like gap_list, gap_resolve, and gap_delete.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever you encounter an unresolved knowledge gap. It also explains the deduplication behavior (repeated asks increment asked_count), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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