whodb_pending

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

Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: tokens are single-use, expire after 60 seconds, and re-submitting the query gets a new token. Annotations already show readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and description aligns without contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with labeled sections and front-loaded key info. The usage example is slightly redundant for a no-param tool, but overall concise and efficient.

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 zero parameters and existence of an output schema, description explains return value (array of pending confirmations with fields) and important behavioral notes (expiry, single-use). Fully informs the agent for this simple tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Description provides a usage example showing no arguments, which is clear. Baseline 4 for no params is appropriate, and no additional parameter info needed.

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 lists pending write confirmations waiting for approval, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by associating with the confirm-writes workflow, and the use of 'List' and 'pending' clarifies its scope.

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 use cases (recovering lost tokens, checking pending operations) and what it's not recommended for, with a clear statement that it's a utility tool for a specific workflow. Also mentions token expiration and renewal, guiding proper usage.

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