find-research-gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool queries arXiv and produces an analysis of gaps, which is useful. However, it doesn't specify the output format, any network dependency implications, or whether it interacts with session state. For a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the three types of outputs. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to explain the result. It does list what it identifies (under-explored areas, open problems, ideas), but it doesn't state the response format or whether it saves anything. Given the sibling tools (save-paper, clear-session), some session context would be helpful, but the current description is not grossly incomplete.

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% for the single 'topic' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's phrase 'on a topic' simply echoes the parameter without adding new meaning. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Analyze the latest arXiv papers'), the target resource (arXiv papers on a topic), and the specific outcomes (under-explored areas, open problems, novel project ideas). It distinguishes itself from siblings like discover-papers by focusing on analysis for gaps rather than just finding papers.

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 (when you want research gaps on a topic) but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools like discover-papers or summarize-paper, though the purpose is reasonably inferred.

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