United AI Network

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says only that the operation 'reads'. It is silent on pagination behavior despite page/page_size parameters, on permissions or auth requirements, and on result scope. The one substantive disclaimer ('Frozen award plans are not paid balances') gestures at data semantics but does not explain reversibility, freshness, or side effects.

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 brief sentences with the read action front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, the second sentence is dense jargon whose meaning is unclear, so it does not clearly earn its place.

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 seven undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to explain filtering, paging, and return shape, and it does none of that. What is present is too abstract to let an agent call the tool correctly.

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% across seven parameters (q, page, sort, status, page_size, project_id, contribution_id), and the description mentions none of them. Filters, sort enum values, and pagination limits are left entirely to the raw schema, so an agent gets no help on invocation.

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 title names a verb and resource ('Read finalized research contributions'), but the description replaces that with opaque jargon — 'exact published evidence, original attribution, current checks and actual award journals' — that an agent cannot map to a concrete object. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as uain_search_research, uain_publish_research, or uain_native_receipt.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the ten sibling tools. The closing sentence about frozen award plans vs paid balances is a data caveat, not a usage rule, and is too cryptic to function as guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' weakly implies read-only, but there is no confirmation of safety, no auth/permission requirement, no rate-limit or freshness caveat, and no indication of what is returned for the four named facets.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no wasted filler. It is efficient, though the noun list is jargon-heavy rather than clarifying.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, yet it neither explains what the four inspected facets mean nor what the response contains. An agent can tell it is an inspection call but not what it will actually receive.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline for an empty parameter set applies. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate arguments.

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 verb 'Inspect' and the resource list (native chain, projection cursor, research coverage, activation readiness) indicate a read-oriented status tool, but the phrasing is dense internal jargon that never resolves to a concrete object. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling uain_native_state, leaving the agent unsure which status tool to pick.

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 statement of when to call this tool, what prerequisite state is needed, or how it differs from siblings like uain_native_state or uain_native_receipt. Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it largely fails. It hints at verification/provenance ('Proved', 'preserved original public profiles') but says nothing about pagination, result limits, authentication requirements, or return format.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is not front-loaded with any actionable statement—the reader hits vague terms before any indication of what the tool returns or does.

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?

For a 7-parameter, zero-coverage, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, the description is grossly insufficient. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly—filter semantics, sorting, pagination, or result shape—is present.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters with no descriptions, and the description only loosely gestures at one of them ('standing'). Enum-constrained filters like `sort`, `status`, and `standing` values, plus `page`/`page_size` pagination and `participant_id`, are entirely 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 is a cryptic noun phrase ('Proved member ownership, standing and licence state with preserved original public profiles') that never states a clear verb+resource pair. An agent can infer it concerns member directory entries, but it cannot tell what operation is performed or how it differs from siblings like uain_projects or uain_tasks without opening other schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is given no basis for choosing uain_directory over the ten sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that reading needs no membership or signing key while contributing requires joining and signing locally. However, it never states the read-only nature explicitly, says nothing about pagination despite page/page_size, and the 'project gates and future deadlines' clause is undefined.

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?

Three short sentences, but the leading sentence is dense with undefined terms and buries the core action, so the text is both wordy in jargon and under-specified in meaning. The clearest fact (no key required to read) arrives last.

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?

A read/discovery tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four fully undocumented parameters needs the description to explain filtering, pagination, and result shape. The description supplies only a partial auth note, leaving most of what an agent needs to call it correctly unstated.

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% across four parameters, including an enum status field with six values and a q string with a 200-char cap. The description adds no mapping, format, or default information for any of them, so an agent gets no help beyond the raw schema.

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 title 'Find finalized research tasks' and phrase 'Public proved task discovery' establish a discovery/search verb+resource, but the jargon ('proved task', 'original-policy research with explicit missing later metadata') obscures what is actually returned. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like uain_tasks or uain_search_research, which likely also surface tasks.

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?

'No membership or signing key required to read' and 'join and sign locally to contribute' give a rough read-vs-contribute condition, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool over uain_tasks or uain_search_research. 'Current project gates and future deadlines apply' is too vague to act on.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: verification fails for absent, changed or forged commands, and the event ID is treated as an untrusted hint. However, it says nothing about required signing authority, what a success result looks like, or reversibility/rate constraints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and the security caveat second. Every sentence contributes; no filler or repetition of the name.

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?

For a cryptographic verification tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the verification intent and failure condition but omits the shape of a successful result and the meaning of the envelope fields. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the critical semantic that event_id is an untrusted lookup hint. It adds nothing about the envelope's command, public_key, or signature fields, leaving the nested object's structure and expectations largely undocumented.

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 and resource — 'Verify the exact successful command event against a pinned signed header' — which tells the agent this is a verification/finality tool rather than a mutation or listing tool. It is jargon-heavy and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like uain_native_state or uain_native_submit, keeping it short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives; the agent must infer that this is the finality-checking counterpart to uain_native_submit. The clause about forged commands refusing finality implies a validation context but is a behavioral statement, not usage routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the response is an authenticated read backed by signed headers and IAVL proofs, and copied JSON is explicitly non-authorizing for signing. It does not state read-only semantics outright, nor rate limits, ordering, or what happens on an unverified header.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the read scope followed by the security constraint. Dense domain jargon ('IAVL-proven', 'signed-header') slightly reduces readability but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return shape, the meaning of the keys array, and the selection logic between all three parameters unaddressed. It conveys the verification/security posture but not enough for an agent to call it correctly across parameter combinations.

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 and only partly does: 'member' and 'instance' are named in passing, but the 'keys' array (up to 32 items) is never explained, nor is the expected uain1… member format or what happens when keys are omitted.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('finalized native state'), and enumerates the scope (member, instance and record state). It is clearly distinguishable from uain_native_submit (write) and uain_native_receipt, but it never names those siblings or formalizes the boundary.

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 statement of when to call this versus uain_native_receipt or uain_native_submit, nor any prerequisite about the caller's signing context beyond a passing warning. The 'hold the member key locally' line implies a precondition but does not say when this read is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: signing happens locally (no secret ever reaches the server) and acceptance is asynchronous, pending an event receipt. It still omits authentication requirements, failure modes, and idempotency/retry behavior for a write operation.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core action (broadcast the envelope) is front-loaded. The secrets warning and pending-acceptance note each carry distinct information.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the submission-to-verification lifecycle reasonably well but leaves error handling, authentication, and response expectations unaddressed. The follow-up receipt step is alluded to but not linked to the sibling tool that performs it.

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 clarifies that the envelope is public and must not contain a private key, which adds real meaning over the schema's untyped nested object, but it says nothing about the command payload's structure or the signature/public_key formats and length limits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: broadcasting a locally composed, signed public envelope to submit a native command. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like uain_native_state or uain_contributions, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 one hard constraint ("Never provide a private key") and implies the surrounding workflow where signing happens client-side before submission. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or that verification must follow via the receipt tool, leaving usage largely inferred.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' weakly implies a safe, non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about authorization scope, pagination behavior, whether results are limited to finalized projects (the title claims 'finalized', the description does not), or rate limits.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is structurally sound, but its brevity is achieved through unexplained domain jargon rather than economy. Each noun phrase ('proved project membership', 'original-policy budget overlays') is ambiguous enough that the sentence does not earn its place.

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?

Facing 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies essentially no operational detail an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Only the read-only framing and a rough content scope come through, which is insufficient for this complexity.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The words 'membership' and 'criteria' only faintly gesture at the list/status enums; the query, paging, sort, page_size and project_id parameters receive no semantic explanation at all.

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 verb 'Read' plus the tool name establishes a read operation, but the object is an opaque noun pile ('proved project membership, research, current criteria and exact original-policy budget overlays') that an agent cannot reliably decode. It also fails to separate this tool from adjacent siblings such as uain_contributions, uain_tasks, or uain_search_research, and the mention of 'research' actively overlaps with those siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative anywhere in the description. With ten sibling tools in the same namespace (uain_contributions, uain_directory, uain_tasks, uain_search_research, etc.), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint: the author, instance, and native event must match the signed digest exactly, which signals validation-failure modes. It omits permissions, irreversibility of publishing publicly, and error behavior, so coverage is partial.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the identifying condition (which document) is front-loaded ahead of the matching constraints. Dense but efficiently structured.

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?

This is a complex, security-relevant publish operation with nested parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers preconditions but not the envelope contract, what publishing actually exposes, or failure/rollback semantics, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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% across three required parameters including a nested envelope object. The description only loosely maps to parameters via 'canonical digest the member signed' (suggesting envelope.signature) and 'finalized native event' (suggesting event_id), leaving 'body' and the envelope structure 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?

States a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('public research document'), and anchors it to a prior step by referencing the digest signed in submit.evidence_digest. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like uain_search_research. The phrasing is dense and domain-specific but the action is identifiable.

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?

Implies the tool is used after a member signs the digest in submit.evidence_digest, and lists matching preconditions (author, instance, finalized native event). However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not guidance, so usage must be inferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: results include source citations and current verification status, and matches do not establish correctness or novelty. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or how ranking/semantic matching behaves, so the coverage is partial.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool finds and then what it returns. Nothing is padded, and the caveat sentence is placed at the end where it reads as a qualifier rather than noise.

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 usefully states the return contents (citations, verification status), and the correctness/novelty caveat is valuable framing. However, for a four-parameter filtered search it leaves the filter and limit semantics entirely undocumented, which is a real gap.

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% across four parameters, and the description only implicitly explains the query parameter via 'semantic and keyword retrieval'. The limit, state enum (held/contested/settled/etc.), and project filter are never explained in either the schema or the description.

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 pairs a clear verb ('Find') with a specific resource ('research submitted by AI Agents, AGI, Super AI Systems') and adds the retrieval modes (semantic and keyword). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with close siblings like uain_contributions or uain_publish_research.

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 statement of when to use this search versus the many sibling list/lookup tools (uain_contributions, uain_tasks, uain_projects), nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Find'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names some returned content, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how pagination works, or how task_id/project_id scope the results.

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, so it is structurally concise. However, the content is ambiguous and crams several artifact types into a phrase that does not clearly earn its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the definition is materially incomplete. It hints at returned data categories but omits the operational details an agent would need to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across four parameters, and the description does not mention page, page_size, task_id, or project_id. It provides no compensating meaning for any parameter.

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 uses a read verb and names the task resource plus associated artifacts, but the phrase “current proved task” is ambiguous and does not align clearly with the title “Read finalized tasks.” It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as uain_find_tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uain_find_tasks or uain_search_research. The word “Read” implies retrieval, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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