Retrieve questions that returned no source for the scholar review queue, showing corpus gaps and what to add next.
Questions that returned no source, for the scholar's review queue. This is the corpus improvement loop: gaps are what should be added next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the conceptual meaning of a 'gap' and frames this as a corpus-improvement loop, but says nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, ordering, pagination, or result volume. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin disclosure.
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?
Two short sentences with no padding, and the core idea (questions with no source) is front-loaded. The second sentence adds framing rather than repetition, though it leans slightly toward rationale over operational detail.
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 simple one-parameter read-only list tool, the description conveys what a gap is but not what a returned item looks like, how results are ordered, or how the limit interacts with the queue. With no output schema present, some of that burden remains unfilled.
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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it, its default of 50, or its 1–500 range. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.
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 resource — 'questions that returned no source' surfaced in a scholar's review queue — which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment without a verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_corpus or answer_question. The purpose is clear but requires the agent to infer the 'list' action from the name.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though siblings such as search_corpus and answer_question are plausible substitutes an agent could confuse this with. 'For the scholar's review queue' implies a workflow context but does not tell the agent under what condition to call this versus another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.