List unanswered questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: plugin-dependent accuracy, the inability to distinguish a question from a discussion in fallback mode, and conditional inclusion of triage status. Those degradations are exactly the semantics an agent needs to interpret 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and progressively layering plugin conditions. No filler, though the closing triage sentence is somewhat dense and could have been its own clause rather than a trailing aside.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does mention per-item triage status and the underlying candidate set. It still omits pagination behavior and any hint of result ordering, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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%, and the schema already documents page and the limit default of 20. The description adds nothing about pagination or result size, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('list unanswered questions') and frames the scope as 'the queue for someone who wants to help', which lets an agent distinguish it from search_forum, list_recent_topics, and find_answers without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the two operational regimes: with the Q&A plugin it is the authoritative unsolved list, without it it falls back to recent unreplied topics. This tells the agent when results are trustworthy but stops short of naming a sibling tool to use instead when the approximation is insufficient.

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