ops_unanswered_threads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but omits critical safety information (read-only vs. destructive), the algorithmic definition of 'unanswered' (zero replies vs. no accepted answer), and the structure of returned data. While it mentions 'stale' implying temporal filtering, it fails to disclose rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the cryptic token_override parameter.

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 that prioritizes the core action and subject matter, minimizing word count. However, 'for follow-up operations' adds vague operational context that doesn't clarify functionality, slightly diminishing the value of the conciseness.

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?

Considering six undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for agent confidence. It fails to explain filtering logic, pagination behavior (max_threads), return data structures, or the impact of boolean flags, leaving critical gaps in contextual understanding.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage across six parameters, the description inadequately compensates by only implicitly referencing 'channel' and temporal concepts (stale) without explaining the distinction between lookback_hours and min_age_minutes, the purpose of include_bot_replies in determining 'unanswered' status, or the function of token_override.

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 provides a specific verb (Find) and resource (unanswered or stale question-like threads) that clearly differentiates this tool from its operational siblings (access control, incidents, broadcasting). However, the phrase 'for follow-up operations' introduces slight ambiguity regarding the intended use case without explicitly contrasting with alternatives like ops_channel_snapshot.

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 states what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as ops_channel_snapshot or ops_recent_failures. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., channel permissions), exclusion criteria, or workflow context necessary for proper tool selection.

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