hcm_list_pending_approvals

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, and the description reinforces that this only lists pending items and does not approve, deny, or execute anything. It adds a useful selection-state detail ('pending ... awaiting human approval'), but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single seven-word clause that front-loads the action and resource and contains no filler. 'Pending' and 'awaiting human approval' are mildly redundant, but the phrase still earns its place by clarifying the workflow state.

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, read-only list tool, this description is sufficient to invoke correctly: it identifies the resource and the state filter. It does not mention return shape or the link to the approval mutations, but those omissions are minor given the tool's trivial complexity and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively complete and there is no parameterization burden for the description. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies because no semantic augmentation is needed.

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 the specific action verb 'List' and names a precise resource: 'pending write intents awaiting human approval.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutation/approval siblings like hcm_approve_write and hcm_deny_write, as well as from generic list tools like hcm_list_resources.

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 makes the tool's role clear: it is the read-only discovery step in the approval workflow, surfacing write intents that require human approval before approve/deny actions are relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and no plausible alternative listing tool is suggested.

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