Persisted Asha Blindspots / coverage gaps from posture analysis. Use only when status=available; do not infer gaps from empty or unavailable responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max flagged clusters (default 10). | |
| topic | No | Optional topic/title/summary substring, e.g. palestine. | |
| min_mci | No | Minimum persisted Manufactured Consensus Index. | |
| posture | No | Require this posture key in posture_distribution.by_posture. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully notes that results are persisted and only meaningful when status=available, and warns against misinterpreting empty/unavailable responses. It does not detail return format or permissions, but for a read-only retrieval tool this adds meaningful operational context.
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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity and immediately followed by a critical usage caveat. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
With four optional, well-documented filters and no output schema, the description conveys the core return concept (blindspots/coverage gaps) and the critical posture-status caveat. It could mention the response shape or typical fields, but the existing caveat prevents the most likely misuse.
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 100% and each parameter already has clear meaning (limit, topic, min_mci, posture). The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource as 'Persisted Asha Blindspots / coverage gaps from posture analysis' and clearly implies a retrieval operation, distinguishing it from sibling search/brief tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', making it slightly less direct than ideal.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use only when status=available') and provides a clear exclusion ('do not infer gaps from empty or unavailable responses'). It does not name alternative tools, but the conditional usage guidance is strong and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.