List 2ools approval requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds key behavioral context: 'Returns project/version identity and attribution, never generated source' — confirming it returns metadata but not the generated content itself. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by return constraints. Every sentence adds value and is appropriately sized given the sibling list length and tool complexity.

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 read-only listing tool with fully defined schema parameters and complete annotations, the description covers the key return semantics (identity/attribution, no source). Without an output schema, mentioning that it never returns generated source is helpful. Minor gap: could hint at ordering or pagination, but not critical given the limit parameter.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema fields (limit, status). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters clearly. The description could hint at defaults or format, but it does not.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('approval requests'), and clarifies it deals with 'exact saved versions waiting for a separately delegated reviewer'. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_artifact_approval_requests and approve_artifact_version.

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 implies usage for retrieving pending reviews via 'waiting for a separately delegated reviewer', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_artifact_approval_requests or approve_version. It provides helpful context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names.

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