List staged actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the actions are 'staged' with previews and expiry times. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it could mention behavior like empty lists or ordering.

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 one sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy beyond the repeated 'Read-only' which matches annotations.

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 no-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (previews and expiry times) and the context (staged actions), and sibling tools complete the workflow picture. No output schema is present, but the description adequately conveys return content.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('Show') and identifies a clear resource ('write actions that are staged and waiting for confirmation'), including details like previews and expiry times. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'confirm_action' and 'cancel_action'.

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 clearly implies when to use it: to review staged write actions before confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its role in the workflow.

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