sdd-validate-gap

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it computes, what side effects it might have, or what output to expect. 'Analyze the implementation gap' reveals no behavioral traits.

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 extremely short (5 words) but lacks substantive content. This is under-specification, not efficient conciseness; it omits critical information about purpose and behavior.

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?

In a multi-step SDD workflow with one parameter and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what 'implementation gap' means, what the tool does, what it returns, or how it relates to the rest of the workflow. This is completely inadequate for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 fully documents the single parameter featureName with a clear pattern and description. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage (100%), the description need not add parameter details. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Analyze the implementation gap' uses a generic verb ('Analyze') and an undefined resource ('implementation gap'). It does not specify what a gap is, what analysis is done, or how this differs from sibling tools like sdd-validate-design.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool, what triggers its use, or how it fits into the workflow alongside sdd-validate-design, sdd-review-test-cases, or other siblings. The name hints at validation but no context is given.

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