Unknowns ledger

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: unknowns are exported with the analysis so reports never silently drop them, which explains the durable side effect of 'record'. However, it omits the mutating 'remove' action entirely and says nothing about reversibility or whether resolve requires evidence. Not contradictory, but incomplete for a write-capable 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 dense sentence that front-loads the three primary actions before the rationale. It earns its place, though packing three operations plus rationale into one sentence makes the enumeration slightly harder to parse than a short list would be.

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 9-parameter, 4-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow adequately but leaves gaps: the 'remove' action is undocumented, and there is no mention of how listing paginates or what a resolve returns. An agent could call it, but not without opening the schema to discover the fourth action.

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 67%, so several parameters (id, status, checked, question, resolution, targetId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds some value by mapping 'record' to a question plus 'what was already checked', reinforcing the checked field's intent, but it says nothing about pagination (limit/offset) or targetId, so it does not fully 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?

The description pairs a specific resource (unknowns ledger) with the concrete operations: record a material question, list open/resolved unknowns, resolve one. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the 'unknowns' domain rather than analysis or export. It only loses a point because the schema exposes a fourth action, 'remove', that the description never mentions.

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?

Usage is implied through the enumerated actions ('record a material question the investigation could not answer'), which gives some sense of when this applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as hexvero_export or hexvero_analyze, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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