Scan workflow-store declarations against worklog execution to identify three gap types: missing personnel, missing capabilities, and pending upgrades. Outputs a consumable gap list for bounty conversion without writing data.
workflow 能力缺口分析——扫描 workflow-store 声明节点 vs worklog 实际执行，产出三类缺口清单（缺人/缺能力/待升级），可被商业平台消费转悬赏。纯读零写入。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_dir | No | 数据根目录（缺省走 getDataDir 解析链） | |
| window_days | No | 统计窗口天数（缺省 30） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states '纯读零写入' (pure read, zero writes), which is a critical safety trait for an analysis tool. This goes beyond what any schema field could convey, though it omits details like error handling or resource consumption, which are less critical for a read-only operation.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies the read-only nature. Every clause adds value: the analysis method, the output structure, and the safety guarantee. There is zero filler.
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?
For a read-only analysis tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and output categories. It does not detail the exact return format or edge cases, but the high-level output (three gap lists) is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. The read-only disclosure further reduces risk.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (data_dir and window_days) with default behavior explained. The description adds no extra parameter context, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate – the description is not expected to repeat schema information.
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 uses a specific verb (分析/scan) and names the exact resources compared (workflow-store declared nodes vs worklog actual execution). It also enumerates the three output categories (缺人/缺能力/待升级), making the tool's function unmistakable even among many siblings.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or how it relates to other workflow-related tools (e.g., workflow_submit, workflow_create). The only hint is that its output can be consumed by commercial platforms, but that describes downstream use, not when to call the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.