questions

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: default filtering excludes abandoned/superseded initiatives because dropping the work settles them, and `ref` can override that exclusion. This is non-obvious filtering behavior an agent would otherwise mispredict.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The primary behavior (unresolved questions grouped by initiative) is front-loaded, with the exclusion rule and its `ref` override following immediately.

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?

It explains the filtering default but omits what `collection` and `include_implementation` do and gives no hint of the return shape (no output schema exists). Adequate for the read-only query it is, but an agent calling with those two parameters is guessing.

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 coverage is only 33% — `collection` and `include_implementation` have no descriptions anywhere, and the description does not explain them. It does clarify `ref`'s role (requesting otherwise-excluded initiatives), but two of three parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 names a specific resource (open questions) and its grouping (by initiative), which distinguishes it from siblings like next_question, report, and list. The verb is implicit ('returns/lists') rather than stated, but an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule: abandoned and superseded initiatives are excluded by default unless requested via `ref`. However, it never says when to use this tool versus next_question or report, nor what the default scope is beyond the exclusion behavior.

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