get_unresolved_uncertainties

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral details such as read-only nature or side effects. For a tool with zero annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosure, but it fails to mention even basic traits like idempotency or data scope.

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 excessively brief and phrased as a question, which is not a proper description. It is under-specified rather than concise, sacrificing informativeness for brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), a clear one-sentence description could be sufficient. However, the current description is incomplete and ambiguous, failing to clearly convey the tool's purpose or the nature of the returned data.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it also does not detract. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously.

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 is a vague question ('What are we still figuring out together?') rather than a clear statement of the tool's function. It implies retrieving unresolved uncertainties but lacks a specific verb and resource description. The name provides clarity, but the description fails to independently state the tool's purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related siblings (e.g., resolve_uncertainty, mark_uncertainty). There is no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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