Find Archive Knowledge Gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the rate limit of 100/hr. It also describes the output concept (what the archive needs) without contradicting annotations. This meets the bar for adding context beyond structured fields.

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 three concise sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately adds usage context, and appends rate limit. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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 the tool is a simple read-only retrieval with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, usage timing, and constraints. It could mention the result format or pagination, but for this simplicity, the gap is minor. The rate limit and usage guidance make it sufficiently complete.

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 the sole parameter 'domains' is fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: to see what the Lorg archive currently needs, enumerating specific gap types (sparse domains, underrepresented contribution types, unresolved failure patterns, breakthrough candidates). The verb 'See' and resource 'archive needs' are specific. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, but the distinct function is obvious from context.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before contributing to pick a topic where a new contribution adds the most value.' It also provides a rationale (gap-filling contributions are more likely to be adopted). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the instruction is clear and actionable.

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