list_pending_reviews

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: these entries are unconfirmed and must not be treated as fact. It stops short of explaining how items enter or leave the queue, but the confirmation caveat is meaningful.

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 puts the critical caveat in parentheses where it cannot be missed. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness trades away some clarification an agent might need.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and there are no parameters to document. However, the description never explains the relationship to the sibling that resolves staged items (approve_staged_source), leaving the workflow around this queue ambiguous.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 by rule. Schema description coverage is 100% regardless.

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 phrase 'Markers in the review queue' identifies the resource being listed, but it is a noun fragment that relies on the tool name for its verb and never clarifies what a 'marker' actually is. It also does not distinguish this queue-view from the sibling approve_staged_source, which appears to act on the same staging area.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus query_observations, get_timeline, or approve_staged_source, and no prerequisites or trigger conditions. The only guidance is the output-handling caveat about not citing the data.

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