list_pending

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

The verb 'list' suggests a read-only operation, but because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention pagination, sorting, or output format. The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, it leaves minor gaps such as what the returned list contains and the exact criteria for 'pending'. These are not critical for basic usage, so a score of 4 is justified.

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 input schema has a single optional parameter (profileId) with a clear description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('messages currently held for parent approval'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_message and resolve_approval, which operate on individual messages or perform approvals.

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 implies usage for retrieving messages that are pending approval, but it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_approval or check_message. There are no exclusions or alternative pointers, so the usage context is only implied.

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