List Human Escalations

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

The annotation already provides readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that approval decisions are deliberately absent from the agent tool surface, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the annotation, and it clarifies the tool's safety and limitation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous wording.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key limitation, but it omits any details about return format, pagination, or filtering behavior. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no way to know what the response looks like, which is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the limit or status parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and enums, which is risky without explicit guidance. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'List auditable human-escalation state' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from approval-related tools by noting that approval decisions are deliberately absent, which distinguishes it from siblings like request_human_escalation and approve_protected_action.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (auditing escalation state) and explicitly excludes approval decisions, serving as a 'when-not' guideline. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide concrete usage scenarios, so it lacks full explicit alternatives.

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