list_pending_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key limitation: the tool cannot approve or reject actions, which indicates read-only behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, status filtering specifics, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint without any filler or redundant text.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits any explanation of the optional parameters, which is a notable gap given zero schema coverage. The basic purpose and a key limitation are clear, but parameter semantics are missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description makes no mention of the 'limit' or 'status' parameters. The agent is left to infer meaning solely from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for precise invocation.

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 'List' and names the resource 'human-confirmation actions,' clearly identifying this as a read-only enumeration tool. The second sentence distinguishes it from approval/rejection tools by stating it cannot do those, which differentiates it from siblings like execute_approved_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 explicitly states 'This tool cannot approve or reject them,' which is a clear when-not guideline. It implies that listing is the intended use, and that approval/rejection must be done elsewhere, making the usage context unambiguous.

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