open_threads

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

No annotations provided. The description only says it is an inventory/dashboard but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to convey behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences with clear metaphor. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is too brief for a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions. It omits crucial context about what 'open questions' means, how pagination or domain aggregation works, and how it differs from very similar sibling tools like 'unfinished_threads'.

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% and the description does not mention the two parameters (limit_per_domain, max_domains) or their meaning. The agent gets no help understanding how to use these parameters to control the query.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a global inventory of all open questions across all domains, using 'unfinished business' dashboard metaphor. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'unfinished_threads', which may cause confusion about scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'unfinished_threads', 'dormant_contexts', or 'search_conversations'. The description implies it's for a high-level overview but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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