Records features or questions that could not be observed during black-box probing, marking them as coverage gaps rather than confirmed absences so missing evidence stays tracked.
Record something that could not be observed (missing coverage is unknown, not absence).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feature | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| recommended_probes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the key domain rule that missing coverage is unknown, not absence, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what recording changes in the system.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the parenthetical earns its place by clarifying the domain semantics. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values, but the tool has three undocumented parameters and no annotations. The description adds useful conceptual framing but leaves required parameter meaning and behavioral details incomplete.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. The required feature and question fields and the optional recommended_probes field are left completely unexplained.
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 action and domain concept: recording something that could not be observed, with the parenthetical clarifying that missing coverage means unknown rather than absence. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as update_unknown or list_feature_unknowns.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The parenthetical explains a semantic distinction, but it does not route the agent 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.