list_pending_work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying that it lists tasks, quizzes, and pending actions from the Moodle Timeline, which clarifies the scope. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as how results are ordered, whether overdue items are included by default, or any side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds only a narrow amount of extra 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, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no unnecessary filler or repetition. It is concise but perhaps too terse, sacrificing meaningful parameter or usage context for brevity, which slightly reduces its structural effectiveness.

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 that this is a listing tool with four parameters and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the concept of 'pending' in the Timeline, how the days parameter relates to the lookback window, or how it differs from similar tools like list_upcoming_events or list_assignments. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the usage context and parameter semantics are left entirely to the agent's inference. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple configurable filters.

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 description coverage is 0% — the description does not mention any of the four parameters (days, limit, course_ids, include_overdue). While the parameter names and defaults provide some implicit hints (e.g., days as a time window, limit as result cap), the description adds no explicit meaning, and the low coverage requires the description to compensate, which it fails to do. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct a proper call.

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 'Lista' and resource 'tareas, cuestionarios y acciones pendientes del Timeline de Moodle', clearly identifying it as a read operation that lists pending items from the Moodle Timeline. It distinguishes the subject matter from related listing tools (e.g., list_assignments, list_quizzes) by referencing 'Timeline', but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_upcoming_events, list_assignments, or list_quizzes. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of prerequisites. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and description alone.

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