knowledge_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this tool only lists documents and that processing is done separately via knowledge_ingest, which discloses the non-mutating nature. However, it doesn't elaborate on return format or pagination, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage context. No wasted words, information is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes value.

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?

Considering there are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's role and how to integrate it with knowledge_ingest. It could mention the nature of the returned list (e.g., titles, IDs), but given the simplicity, this gap is minor.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on purpose rather than parameters.

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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('documents waiting in the knowledge inbox'). It also states the ultimate purpose ('to be summarized into pinned-on-approve memory proposals'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_ingest_submit or proposals_pending.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use with the knowledge_ingest prompt to process them in-session.' This tells the agent when and how to use this tool in combination with another, making the workflow clear without needing to infer.

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