jev_list_pending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey what items appear and that each includes a reason, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the output format. For a list tool this is a moderate gap rather than a serious one.

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 short and front-loads the main subject while adding a meaningful qualifier about reasons. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit verb like 'Lists,' but there is no unnecessary content.

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 no-parameter read-oriented listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and why each item is pending. It omits output-structure details and sibling routing, but those are not essential at this complexity level.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage and the description has no parameter-level burden. The description still usefully characterizes what domain concept the tool returns.

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 names the specific resource ('Figma edits that were not written to code automatically') and the key detail (the reason for each item). It is clear in meaning, but the noun-phrase structure relies on the tool name for the verb and it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like jev_status or jev_changelog.

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?

It implies the tool is the place to inspect unresolved Figma edits, especially those involving uncertain placement or design tokens. However, it never states when to choose this over jev_status, jev_progress, or jev_changelog, nor does it mention follow-up actions like jev_resolve_pending.

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