whodb_platform_gap_analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns ready areas, gaps, suggested tools, and next actions, and explains the workspace fallback behavior. However, it doesn't add much beyond annotations and schema about side effects or limitations. With annotations covering key traits, a 3 is appropriate for moderate added 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then parameter clarification. No wasted words; each sentence adds necessary information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description specifies the return fields (ready areas, gaps, suggested tools, next actions) which is helpful. It also covers parameter defaults and targeting. For a read-only analysis tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, this is nearly complete, though a bit more on how it differs from similar siblings could help.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the 'workspace' parameter's default behavior and fallback chain, and mentions that it accepts workspace for per-call targeting without changing defaults. This enriches beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, earning a 4.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Return a goal-aware gap analysis'. The description is clear about what the tool produces (gap analysis) and that it's goal-aware, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like whodb_platform_next_actions or whodb_platform_build_plan which likely overlap in purpose.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use: 'when the agent needs to explain what is missing before building an app, data product, ontology workflow, transform pipeline, or AI-backed function.' It lists contexts but doesn't name alternative tools to use instead, leaving some ambiguity among the many sibling tools.

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