mindgap_context

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

The description declares 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it should disclose more (e.g., whether it modifies state, what side effects exist). It adds the fact that it mirrors 'mindgap context', but lacks details on output format or performance.

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 of 15 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the action 'Render a markdown digest'. No unnecessary information is present.

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 the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description omits explanation of the 'depth' parameter, does not specify the return format beyond 'markdown', and lacks differentiation from similar query tools (e.g., mindgap_find). More context on neighbor links and expected output is needed.

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 has two parameters (query, depth) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'for a query', partially explaining the 'query' parameter, but omits depth entirely. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 'renders a markdown digest (matched nodes + neighbor links) for a query', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_node' or 'export' by focusing on query-based digest, though it could be more explicit about difference from 'mindgap_find'.

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 mentions 'Read-only' implying safe usage, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mindgap_find' or 'mindgap_get_node'. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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