List pending actions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds detail about what each action would change and expiration, which is useful. It does not contradict annotations, and the addition of status filtering (pending/all) goes beyond the basic annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key details (what changes, expiration). Efficient and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficient for a list tool. It covers scope (pending) and the optional filter, leaving nothing critical missing for typical use.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little extra. It mentions 'status filter' and 'newest first' (matching limit), but the schema already provides this information, so credit is baseline.

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 states it lists actions waiting for approval, which is specific and matches the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like confirm_action and reject_action, which act on actions, but does not explicitly name them.

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 implies usage for viewing pending actions, and the 'status' filter allows including decided ones. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools suggests it is for listing, not acting on actions.

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