Classifies objective sub-questions as COVERED, WEAK, or GAP, flags unexplored GAPs for automated search, and requires expanding and verifying notes for COVERED items.
objective の各小問 Qi を COVERED / WEAK / GAP に分類する（探索候補=GAP）。
決定論ベースライン（文字bigram＋脂質クラス語彙）。COVERED は該当ノートを expand して 真偽を必ず検証すること。GAP かつ未探索の Qi だけが自動探索の対象（探索済みは注記される）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnly annotation covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond it: deterministic baseline using character bigrams plus lipid-class vocabulary, mandatory verification of COVERED notes, and automatic-search eligibility for GAPs only. It still does not describe the return payload in detail.
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 short, front-loaded with the core classification purpose, and each sentence adds operational information. The parenthetical method note is compact and does not distract from the main instruction.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return shape more fully. It names the classification categories and mentions explored notes, but it does not state the structure of results or clarify the required analysis_id input.
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 sole parameter analysis_id is not mentioned in the description. The description contextually implies an analysis is being inspected, but it does not explain what analysis_id refers to or how it should be supplied.
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 verb-resource pair: classify each sub-question Qi of an objective into COVERED/WEAK/GAP. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool.
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?
It gives operational conditions such as only unexplored GAPs being auto-search targets and requiring verification of COVERED items. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.