resource_term_pending_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context: nothing in the book changes until adoption ('采用之前书里一个字节都不动'). This clarifies the semantics of 'pending' beyond the safety flags. It does not describe return contents or ordering.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the em-dash clause carrying the behavioral note. Little waste, though the compound structure is slightly cryptic.

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 list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema, it still does not indicate what the listing returns, so an agent must infer the shape of results.

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%, so project/workdir/writing are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional filter syntax or semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb (列出 = list) and resource (待审更正 = pending corrections), and the parenthetical sharpens the scope to corrections of existing terms/facts rather than new entries. This distinguishes it from the add/propose siblings without naming them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with resource_term_pending_adopt/drop.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool to call to review proposals before adopting or dropping them. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. pending_adopt, pending_drop) are given.

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