pending_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Snapshot') and explains the contents of each of the four buckets with specific status criteria. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear summary sentence, followed by a bulleted list of the four buckets with definitions, and ending with usage guidance and filter details. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what each bucket contains and the filtering capabilities. It does not discuss result ordering, limits, or default behavior when projectId is omitted (though the schema description mentions linking). Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage as given). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the optional filters ('narrow the result to your area') and providing an example use case for excludeFlowId ('to exclude the flow you are currently planning for'). This extra context aids in correct parameter usage.

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 a specific verb ('Snapshot') and resource ('open work across the project') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by aggregating four distinct types of pending work (inFlightFlows, openIntents, proposedAdrs, pendingDrafts). This makes its purpose unambiguous and unique.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'BEFORE starting planning so you don't propose something already in flight or already captured as an intent.' It also provides practical usage tips for filters and excludeFlowId. However, it does not mention situations when the tool should not be used or suggest alternative tools.

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