discover

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the tool's function (gap analysis, identifying known/unknown) but omits behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds moderate value but lacks depth expected for a complex tool.

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?

Very concise at three lines with a clear structure: one-line summary, one-line outcome, one-line usage guidance. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity (e.g., hinting at output or key parameters).

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?

Given five parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It mentions the core function and use case but does not explain the role of parameters like focus_mode or identify_gaps. The output schema likely covers return values, so this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameters; it relies entirely on the schema. While sufficient, it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it performs 'exploratory discovery with knowledge gap analysis' and 'identifies what's known and unknown about a topic'. The verb+resource+outcome is specific and distinct from siblings like search (which returns results) and ask (Q&A). Mention of 'cold-start exploration' reinforces its unique use case.

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?

Says 'Use for cold-start exploration', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not specify when not to use or offer alternatives among siblings (e.g., if you need direct answers, use ask; if you need detailed research, use research). The guidance is present but minimal.

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