open_items

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable domain semantics by specifying exactly what counts as an 'open item' (unremediated findings, tests without plain Pass, drafting placeholders), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the query's scope.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and then details the three item types. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 parameterless query tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description provides the essential domain definition of open items. It could be slightly more complete by referencing sibling tools or output ordering, but it covers the core need.

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 no parameters, so parameter semantics are moot. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to describe non-existent inputs.

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 defines the tool's scope by enumerating the three categories of open items (unremediated findings, tests without a plain Pass, drafting placeholders). It is a specific query concept, though it does not differentiate itself explicitly from siblings like list_findings or get_workpaper.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it returns but does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate in certain contexts.

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