List open questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the deliberate absence of citations ('returns no citations — there is nothing to cite, which is the point') and describes the content of results (questions, answering role, blockers). This adds meaningful context, though it stops short of declaring read-only semantics or other operational details.

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 two sentences, both concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains a key behavioral nuance. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential details: what the tool returns (unanswered questions, responsible role, blockers) and a notable behavior (no citations). It could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., array of objects), but it is largely complete for simple list retrieval.

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, so the input schema is complete. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist, and none is needed.

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: 'Questions no source answers, with the role that can answer each and what it blocks.' This clearly explains what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_sources and list_contradictions, which focus on different aspects.

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 the tool is used to find unanswered questions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_contradictions or list_sources. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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