pending

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the tool is limited to items awaiting human confirmation or reply — useful scoping detail, but nothing about result ordering, volume, or what a pending item contains.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and the resources and ends with the scoping qualifier. There is no filler, repetition of the title, or restatement of the name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential shape of what comes back (pending questionnaires and approval cards). It could note how to act on a returned item — presumably via minimax_answer_question or minimax_draft_answer — but nothing critical for invoking it is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no argument semantics for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to explain any inputs.

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 names a clear verb (查询) and two specific resources (问卷与审批卡片), plus a scope qualifier (等待人工确认或答复). That is enough for an agent to distinguish this tool from the action-oriented siblings minimax_answer_question and minimax_draft_answer, although it never names those siblings directly.

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 phrase 等待人工确认或答复 implies the usage condition (a pending item that blocks progress and requires human input), but the description does not state when to call this tool instead of siblings such as minimax_tasks or minimax_get_result, and it contains no exclusions or follow-up guidance.

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