coverage_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only scan but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. It lacks details on permissions or side effects.

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 concise and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value. Only two short paragraphs cover purpose, usage, and parameter.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is complete. It covers core behavior, parameter, and usage context. No explanation of return values needed due to output schema.

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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning: 'Path to scan. Defaults to the project root.' It clarifies the default behavior, though it does not specify path format or validation.

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 purpose: find source files without belief artifacts in the vault. It specifies supported file types and mentions a related tool (compile_beliefs), distinguishing its 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 explicitly states it is useful before running compile_beliefs, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling list includes many unrelated tools.

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