find_gaps

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds value by noting 'Applies fuzzy canonicalization and noise filtering', revealing processing behavior beyond a bare scan. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds algorithmic details. No redundancy, front-loaded with key action. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 description explains the core task and processing but omits parameter details. An output schema exists (not shown), so return value clarity is less critical. For a tool with 3 parameters and a discovery function, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references 'vault_path' via 'Scan a markdown vault' but does not explain 'min_references' or 'limit'. The meaning of these parameters is left to the agent to infer, which is insufficient.

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 it scans a markdown vault to find concepts mentioned in multiple notes without dedicated notes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_gaps_by_priority' (which lists existing gaps) and 'export_review_queue' (exporting). The verb 'scan' and 'return concepts' clarifies its discovery role, though explicit differentiation is missing.

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 implies usage for identifying undocumented concepts but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like 'list_gaps_by_priority' or 'generate_research_questions'. No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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