get_my_approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the user-scoping context but omits the fact that the state parameter allows filtering to approved/rejected states, not just pending ones. This is a behavioral nuance not fully disclosed.

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 with no filler. It immediately communicates the core action and scope, maximizing clarity while minimizing length.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations. The description adequately covers the primary purpose and safety profile. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the default state is 'requested' and that filters can broaden to non-pending states, but overall it is sufficient for the low complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'state' parameter, including its enum values and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'approvals', and the scope 'pending for the currently configured user', which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like list_approvals and from approval actions like approve_request/reject_request. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clear context by scoping to the current user, which implies it should be used when needing the user's own approvals rather than a global list. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as suggesting list_approvals for all users' approvals.

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