analyze_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses what the tool surfaces (concentration risk, under-represented types) and that it returns JSON with gap analysis and briefs. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, if any data is modified, or what permissions are required. The behavioral traits are implied but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences cover purpose, specifics, and output. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (gap analysis with recommendations, multiple elements including hook types and messaging angles), the description is comprehensive. It explains the analysis scope, what it surfaces, and the output format (JSON with briefs). With only one parameter, the description fully compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'brand_name' parameter. The description adds context by explaining that the brand is used for analyzing creative library gaps, which provides meaning beyond the schema's simple description 'Brand to analyze'. This adds value for an agent selecting the tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Identify gaps in the user's creative library for a given brand and propose concrete next creatives that fill them.' It specifies the verb (identify, propose) and resource (creative library gaps, next creatives), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_creative' or 'predict_creative'.

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 implicitly guides usage by indicating it is for a specific brand and provides gap analysis and recommendations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose 'analyze_gaps' over 'analyze_creative' or 'get_library_patterns'), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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