list_pending_writes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List writes awaiting human approval,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify whether it has side effects, requires permissions, or how it handles the 'reason' parameter. This is too minimal for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded and to the point, but it sacrifices necessary details for brevity. Still, for what is included, it is efficient.

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 the tool has one required parameter with no explanation and no annotations, the description is incomplete. The presence of an output schema may help with return values, but the description still does not explain the purpose of the 'reason' parameter or provide any behavioral context. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter semantics make it incomplete.

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 completely ignores the required 'reason' parameter. The schema provides only the parameter name and type, leaving the agent without any clue about what 'reason' means or how it filters results. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specific resource ('writes awaiting human approval'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_patients or approve_write. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 this tool is used to see pending write approvals, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It is understandable in the context of sibling tools like approve_write and reject_write, but lacks explicit guidance.

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