get_pending_verifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the list contains inferred triples with confidence scores and source rules, and it implies this is a read-only listing since it defers accept/reject to another tool. However, it never explicitly states that this operation has no side effects or requires any special permission, which would be valuable for safe invocation.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the return content, and the third points to the next step. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it defines what pending verifications are, what the output includes, and what tool to use next. It falls short only by not explicitly stating that this is a read-only operation, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema covers the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description and default value, so the schema alone provides full parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter and even says 'all', which could be slightly misleading given the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's primary action ('List all pending verifications') and defines the resource ('uncertain inferences that need user confirmation'). It also specifies the return contents (inferred triples, confidence scores, source rules), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'verify_inference' tool by pointing to it for accept/reject actions. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 a clear usage context: call this tool to see pending verifications, then use 'verify_inference' to act on them. It provides a directional alternative but does not explicitly contrast with similar listing tools like 'get_pending_rules' or state when not to use this tool. Overall, it offers enough guidance for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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