workflow_pending_list

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission requirements, pagination, or error handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to inform the agent about important aspects like whether the tool requires specific roles or how results are returned.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence and an args list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could benefit from clearer separation of purpose and usage notes, and the use of Chinese may limit accessibility for multilingual agents, though that is not a direct fault.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with richer behavioral details. It does not mention return format, potential errors, or pagination. While the tool is simple, the description leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect usage, such as assuming the user exists or that the list is exhaustive.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'engineer' of type string with no description. The tool description adds 'engineer: 用户名' (username), providing minimal context about the parameter's meaning. This adds some value over the bare schema, but it does not specify format, constraints, or validation rules, so it is only moderately helpful.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving the list of work orders pending review for a specified user. It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('待审核的工单列表'), and it effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'workflow_list' (which likely lists all workflows) and 'workflow_audit' (which performs audit actions).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate that 'workflow_list' should be used for non-pending workflows or that 'workflow_audit' is for taking action on pending items.

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