curiosity_pending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the questions are 'queued by the sleep daemon' and are 'pending,' which is extra context beyond the annotations, but not extensive. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then read-only note, then filter instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one optional parameter, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the source (sleep daemon), state (pending), and filtering option, covering all necessary context.

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% (session_id has a clear description). The description mentions 'Filter by session_id' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List pending curiosity questions queued by the sleep daemon.' It also notes the tool is read-only and can be filtered by session_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on memory operations.

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?

Provides clear context on what the tool does (lists pending curiosity questions) and how to narrow results (filter by session_id). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the read-only nature and filtering hint are useful.

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