feature_unblocked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it explains that answering a gate only changes the gate row, leaving held work invisible until looked at, and that this tool is that lookup. It also discloses that decision_note contains the awaited answer. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or describe output shape, but the 'nothing else' phrasing implies the operation is observational.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the underlying gate-behavior context, and the operational instruction to read decision_note. It is front-loaded with the core idea and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter query tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it explains when to call it and what the returned data means. It could be more explicit about the exact output format and read-only nature, especially since there is no output schema and no annotations, but the description is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents cwd and since_hours. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for high-coverage schemas but gains no extra credit.

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 conveys that the tool reveals work released by a recently answered gate, using 'released' as the key verb and 'work' as the resource. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like feature_blocked, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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 clear context: this is what a worker calls on resuming after a gate has been answered, and it instructs reading each decision_note before starting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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