research_gap_add

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that gaps are first-class and automatically re-attempted, but omits details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or output behavior.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by listing parameters or using bullet points for clarity.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (3 params, 2 required), the description is incomplete: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, ID) or handle error cases, leaving gaps in agent understanding.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides context for 'question' and 'whyUnresolved' implicitly, but does not explicitly describe each parameter's meaning or constraints, leaving ambiguity for 'projectId' and 'whyUnresolved'.

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: to flag an unresolved question that couldn't be backed with evidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that gaps are first-class and automatically re-attempted, making the purpose specific and unique.

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 the tool (after searching without finding evidence) and mentions automatic re-attempts, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like research_finding_add.

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