Get Pending Intents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. '查看' signals a read-only list operation, and '返回: 意图请求列表（完整 JSON）' states the expected outcome. It also discloses the role restriction. It could be more explicit about side effects, but the wording strongly implies this is a non-mutating lookup.

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 compact and well-structured with distinct '何时调用', '何时不需要', and '返回' sections. All information is meaningful and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it returns, who may use it, when to use it, and when not to. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the calibration baseline, this scores 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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-resource pair ('查看待核验的意图请求') and immediately scopes it to the review agent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pending_tasks and clearly identifies what resource the tool operates on.

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 explicitly lists when to call it: when acting as the Review Agent during git hook verification, and when debugging why the graph did not update. It also gives a clear negative case: normal development tasks where the agent should not consume others' intent requests. This is excellent routing guidance.

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