List approvals (default: pending)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint path, disclosing nothing about pagination, ordering, result volume, or whether results are scoped to the current workspace — behavior an agent would need for a cross-account listing.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and the default behavior, with no filler. The parenthetical HTTP path is arguably waste for an agent caller, but it costs little.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It still leaves open return shape, pagination, and whether the list is workspace-scoped, which matter given openWorldHint=true.

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 carry the burden. It does add one genuinely useful fact absent from the schema — that omitting status yields pending — but it explains nothing about the approved/rejected/expired values or any filtering interactions.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('List approvals') and adds the useful qualifier that listing defaults to pending status. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as approvals_listComments or approvalLinks_decide, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 'default: pending' note implies the primary use case (reviewing the pending approval queue) and that passing a status widens the query, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-a-sibling guidance or any statement of scope.

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