grokbot_pending

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'Drops items older than 6 hours' tells the agent results are bounded in time and may silently omit stale work. It stops short of a 5 because nothing is said about ordering, volume, or the shape of a returned item.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the identification of what is listed comes before the retention caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level plus the 6-hour retention boundary, which is the key operational fact. It remains incomplete on the two filter parameters and on what a 'widget' or 'HandoffRequested event' actually contains.

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 0% and the description never mentions agent_id or session_id, so it contributes no meaning for either filter. With two undocumented optional parameters, the agent cannot tell whether passing agent_id narrows results, changes scope, or is ignored — the description should have compensated and does not.

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 specific verb ('List') and two concrete resources ('pending widgets and HandoffRequested events'), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like grokbot_resolve_widget or grokbot_end_handoff. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest alternatives (e.g. grokbot_status, grokbot_wait), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how it relates to related siblings such as grokbot_status, grokbot_wait, or grokbot_resolve_widget. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the polling/inspection call for outstanding work.

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