kg_open_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the stale-after-3-days rule and implies a read-only list operation via the verb 'Lists,' but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, output format, or ordering. It adds some context but lacks full behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, clear, and free of 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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview: purpose, usage, and a specific aging rule. It does not fully describe return values or ordering, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only marginal context by referencing 'aging information' and the stale threshold, which the include_stale parameter description also covers. No new syntax or format details are provided.

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 the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'unresolved questions,' adding the specific scope of 'aging information' and the stale threshold. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kg_resolve_question, which resolves questions, and kg_search, which searches broadly.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to track what needs follow-up and identify forgotten questions.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as noting that kg_resolve_question should be used for resolving questions.

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