unfinished_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose, with no details on side effects (e.g., mutation), authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a read-only search tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is very short (one line), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the core purpose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness, making it hard for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a sibling 'open_threads', the description should clarify the filtering logic beyond just 'stage' vs 'all'. It also fails to mention the output schema or return value, leaving the agent uncertain about what it will receive.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for the two parameters ('domain', 'importance'). The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the schema's default values and types.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: finding conversations in the 'exploring/crystallizing stage' with 'open questions'. It uses a verb ('find') and a clear resource ('conversations'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'open_threads' by adding stage constraints.

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 versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (unresolved conversations) but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for different scenarios.

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