get_unresolved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'unresolved only' filter, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination behavior (a page parameter exists), or what the default db store implies. This is thin for an unannotated read tool.

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 tight sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and the key filter. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It leaves the agent without pagination semantics, store selection, or return shape guidance.

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% across 3 parameters. The description only indirectly implies the incident_id requirement; the db and page parameters are completely unexplained in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb (return) and resource (unresolved evidence) scoped to an agent-declared incident, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_evidence_summary or get_source_evidence. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 choose this over get_source_evidence, get_incident_slice, or get_evidence_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The phrase 'agent-declared incident' hints at context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right call.

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