diagnose_retention_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the read-only nature, low risk, and importantly explains that failed probes are reported in bucketErrors rather than skipped, so a clean findings list does not imply clean buckets. It also discloses reporting of day counts and mode-choice consequences.

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 front-loaded with READ/risk and a one-line summary, then organized into behavioral bullets and an Args block. It is a bit long but every section adds necessary detail; nothing feels redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at return behavior. It mentions envelope truncation, bucketErrors, both day counts, and the contradiction types, which is sufficient for a diagnostic tool. It doesn't fully specify the response shape, but the provided context is adequate.

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 provides no descriptions for limit or target (0% coverage), but the Args section fully compensates: limit caps findings and notes envelope truncation, while target selects the MinIO target and defaults when omitted. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 clearly identifies the tool as a read-only diagnostic that finds WORM/retention gaps across every bucket, sorted worst-first, and enumerates specific contradiction types. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling lifecycle_gap_analysis, but the scope and focus are distinctive enough.

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 use when you need to diagnose retention/WORM gaps, supported by the '[READ][risk=low]' prefix and the list of checks. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions, so only implied guidance is present.

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