List 2ools approval requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying the return content: 'project/version identity and attribution, never generated source.' This discloses what the response includes and excludes, going beyond the structured 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding return details. Every sentence provides distinct information with no redundant filler, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 simple list operation, rich annotations, and full schema descriptions, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It clarifies the output's nature (identity/attribution, not source) but does not specify the exact return structure, which is acceptable without an output schema. However, the phrase 'waiting for a separately delegated reviewer' slightly under-represents the status parameter which can also list approved and rejected requests.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both 'limit' and 'status' having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters—it only mentions 'waiting for a reviewer' which aligns with the default 'pending' status, but does not elaborate on limit or status semantics 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 it lists exact saved versions waiting for a separately delegated reviewer, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from related tools by clarifying it returns version/project identity and attribution, never generated source, setting it apart from artifact-focused tools like list_artifact_approval_requests.

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 clear context: use this to list version approval requests, with a status filter for pending/approved/rejected/all. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'exact saved versions' and the mention of attribution signals it is for version reviews rather than artifacts.

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