检查来源覆盖缺口 / Inspect source coverage gaps

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the tool's non-mutating, non-exhaustive nature is already signaled. The description adds value by explicitly restricting scope (9 channels, 19 enterprises, 34 provinces, 365 secondary regions) and by warning against misinterpreting results ('不把发现线索冒充已批准来源，也不声称抓全互联网'). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the semantic boundary of what the gaps represent (auditable gaps, not approved sources or full internet coverage).

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 sentence with two clauses, efficiently front-loading the core action (compute gaps) and then adding a critical caveat. It uses compact numeric enumerations to convey scope without wasted words. The only minor weakness is that it doesn't mention any output structure or return format (though an output schema exists), and the Chinese is dense but not overly verbose.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to document parameters or return values. The description covers purpose, scope dimensions, and interpretive guardrails. Given the tool's complexity (aggregating across multiple dimensions), the description is sufficient to help an agent decide when to call it and what to expect. However, it doesn't mention any specific use cases or integration with other sibling tools like 'audit' or 'discover_sources', which could be helpful but not strictly necessary.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (coverage 100%). With no parameters to document, the description's job is to explain what the computation is based on and what the output means, which it does by listing the fixed dimensions (9 channels, 19 enterprises, etc.) and the caveat about not representing approved or comprehensive findings. This adds semantic meaning beyond the empty 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 states a specific verb+resource combination: 'calculate auditable gaps' across specified dimensions (9 channels, 19 bounded key enterprises, 34 provinces, 365 secondary regions). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative but clarifies this is about coverage gaps, distinct from tools like discover_sources or audit, implying a review/compute role.

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 provides clear context: it computes gaps by specific categories and acknowledges limitations. It does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but the specificity (e.g., 'bounded key enterprises' vs. broader sources) implies a scoped analysis, and the second sentence guards against misusing its outputs as approved sources or claiming exhaustiveness, which helps the agent decide if this tool fits the need.

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