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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists pending directives for the calling operator and does not acknowledge them. It does not mention additional behavioral traits like being read-only or having no side effects, but the action 'list' implies read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with action and scope, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, audience, filter, and critical caveat.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the essential: what it does, for whom, optional filter, and the important distinction from ack tool. No significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting optional filtering by target_session_id, which helps agents understand the key parameter's usage beyond the schema.

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 'list', the resource 'pending attention directives', and the scope 'for THIS operator'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it does not acknowledge, pointing to ack_attention_directive for that 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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Hosts (Grok/Claude) and CoS use this to see what is waiting.' Also states when not to use for acknowledging: 'Does not ack — use ack_attention_directive after acting.' Provides clear context and alternative.

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