List TacticalRMM Pending Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' is redundant. It adds the global scope and source endpoint but does not disclose other behavior such as pagination, response contents, or how global filtering works, leaving room for more 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a clear read-only note, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

While the description names the global pending actions and source, it does not explain what pending actions are, what the response looks like, or how to interpret the output. With no output schema and no return-value guidance, the description is adequate but leaves the agent to infer important context.

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 100%, with each parameter (limit, offset, response_format) having a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies given 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 'List global pending actions' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. The word 'global' distinguishes it from the sibling tool tacticalrmm_list_agent_pending_actions, and the source endpoint adds specificity.

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 term 'global' implies use for system-wide pending actions rather than agent-specific ones, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative sibling for per-agent pending actions or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the explicit exclusion criterion for a 5.

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