List Pending Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the status enumeration already present in the schema, with no additional behavioral insights like pagination or implications of missing parameters.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It lists the statuses clearly but the phrasing is slightly run-on; however, it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately states what is listed but does not hint at the output structure, pagination, or how it fits into the workflow (e.g., as a precursor to executing actions). Slightly incomplete given the missing output schema.

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 50% (title_id and run_id have descriptions). The description adds context by listing the statuses that can be filtered, but does not describe the 'limit' parameter or the semantics of 'run_id'. It partially compensates but could provide more detail on how parameters affect results.

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 the action 'list' and the resource 'actions for a title' and enumerates the statuses it can filter. However, it does not fully differentiate from other list tools like glitch_list_guidance or glitch_list_artifacts, as it only implies through context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., glitch_list_guidance, glitch_list_artifacts). The description fails to mention when not to use it or provide comparative context.

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