list_feature_unknowns

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. "List" implies a read and the mention of returned fields (id, question, status) and the two provenance sources add useful context, but nothing is said about the optional feature filter's scoping effect, ordering, volume, or permissions required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope lead. The parenthetical about provenance is slightly dense but earns its place by clarifying that coverage-generated entries are included.

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?

An output schema exists, so field-level return detail is redundant (though harmless), and the follow-up action is covered. The gap is the undocumented `feature` parameter combined with zero annotations, meaning the description says nothing about filtering behavior or result scope.

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 0% for the single `feature` parameter, and the description never mentions it. This leaves an unlabeled optional filter whose semantics — whether it narrows results to one feature or defaults to all — must be guessed from the parameter name alone.

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 unknowns") and scopes it ("yours and the ones coverage generated"), which separates it from record_unknown and update_unknown siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with list_claims or list_rules, but the resource noun is distinct enough that selection is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear workflow cue: these unknowns exist "so they can be answered with update_unknown," routing the agent to the correct follow-up tool. It does not state when not to use this tool or what the list omits, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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