whodb_pending

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), description adds critical details: tokens are single-use, expire after 60 seconds, and advice to re-submit query if expired. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with first sentence stating purpose, bullet points for best/not recommended, usage example, return info, and important note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and existence of output schema, the description fully covers tool behavior, usage guidance, and important note on token expiry. Complete for its complexity.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. Description doesn't need to add param info but provides a usage example confirming no arguments, which is helpful. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all pending write confirmations that are waiting for approval.' It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'pending write confirmations', distinguishing it from siblings like whodb_confirm or whodb_query.

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?

Explicitly provides best-for ('recovering lost confirmation tokens; checking what operations are pending') and not-recommended-for ('Anything else'), offering clear usage context.

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