list_pending_work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data source (Timeline) and item types, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering behavior, or the meaning of the 'days' default. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource efficiently. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it is so short that it forgoes necessary parameter details, which slightly detracts from its utility, but the structure itself is clean and direct.

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 tool with four parameters and zero schema documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of parameter semantics, output format, or special behaviors. While an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or provide hints about what the response will look like. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without opening the schema and inferring parameter meaning.

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 by explaining parameters. However, it does not mention 'days', 'limit', 'course_ids', or 'include_overdue' at all. An agent relying on the description alone would have no idea what these parameters control. This is a critical gap for a tool with four parameters and no 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 a clear verb ('Lista' = List) and resource (pending tasks, quizzes, and actions from the Moodle Timeline). It differentiates from siblings like 'list_upcoming_events' and 'get_work_item' by specifying the scope (Timeline, pending items) and item types. An agent can grasp the core function immediately.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools such as 'list_upcoming_events', 'get_work_item', and 'list_assignments', the description offers no conditions or exclusions to help an agent select this tool. The word 'pendientes' implies a usage context, but it does not clarify how it differs from similar listing tools.

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