request_unmatched

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, or lack of mutation. The absence of parameters and the simple verb provide limited transparency beyond the operation itself.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It provides exactly the needed information in a front-loaded manner.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states the core behavior clearly, though it doesn't specify the exact fields returned or behavior when no entries exist. Sibling tool names add some context but are not referenced in the description.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly implies no input required.

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 specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'request journal entries' and a distinct qualifier 'matched no WireMock stub'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_list or request_count.

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 listing unmatched entries but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or explain when this should be chosen over request_list or request_get.

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