ps_hold_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that holds are for 'risky operations blocked pending review', which adds some context about the tool's purpose, but it lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what specific data is returned in the list.

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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all pending holds awaiting human approval') and followed by clarifying context ('Returns holds for risky operations that were blocked pending review'). Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and context but lacks completeness for a tool that likely returns a list of holds. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or other operational details, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (agentId and includeExpired). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of agentId or the implications of including expired holds. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all pending holds awaiting human approval'), specifying that these holds are for 'risky operations that were blocked pending review'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ps_hold_approve and ps_hold_reject by focusing on listing rather than actioning holds.

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 context by mentioning 'pending human approval' and 'risky operations blocked pending review', which suggests when to use this tool (to review blocked operations). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as ps_hold_stats for aggregated data.

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