list_pending

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

The description adds details beyond annotations: it lists the fields returned (status, retry count, next upgrade time) and explains filtering and pagination. Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, and the description aligns. Minor omission: it doesn't mention timeout enum value in the filter list.

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 two sentences: first defines the output, second gives usage and filter capabilities. No redundant words, front-loaded purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields (status, retry count, next upgrade time) and all filter parameters. It covers pagination and age filtering, sufficient for a listing tool with read-only annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status filter (but misses 'timeout' from enum), pagination via limit/offset, and older_than_hours. However, it does not explain the maximum limit or that offset defaults to 0. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 it lists stamp records with status, retry count, and next upgrade time, and mentions filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are create, verify, etc.) by being a query operation.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to monitor the state of all timestamped hashes,' which provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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