List pending T3 actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by specifying what is surfaced: pending approval and user-input flags, plus stable action details when the projection exposes them. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the nature of the data returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and then elaborates with specific details. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks contextual details such as when to use this tool in a workflow, what the response format looks like (though output schema partially covers this), or any edge cases. It is minimally adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 has zero description coverage for threadId, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning or how it is used. The agent must infer that threadId identifies the thread whose pending actions are listed. This is a significant gap since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 states the resource ('pending approval and user-input flags') and the action ('surface'), which clearly conveys listing pending actions for a thread. It distinguishes from siblings like t3_pending_action_respond by implying a read-only listing rather than an action. The verb 'surface' is slightly less direct than 'list', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements t3_pending_action_respond or when it should be called (e.g., before responding). The context is only implicit from the name and description; no explicit exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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