whodb_platform_pending

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it discloses that preview output contains metadata and changed field names only and never includes credential/secret values, and that workspace targeting is per-call without changing defaults. This is valuable disclosure about output content and scoping behavior not captured by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, output behavior, and scoping. Front-loaded with the action. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully flags that previews never include secrets. With annotations covering safety and the output schema covering returns, the definition is nearly complete; minor gap is lack of explicit relationship to whodb_platform_confirm.

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 coverage is 100%, so the nested workspace object and its fields (org/host/project) are fully documented in the schema, including inheritance rules. The description only restates the per-call targeting without adding new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when schema does 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('List pending hosted WhoDB platform writes awaiting confirmation'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling whodb_platform_confirm (which consumes tokens) and from write tools that produce 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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use this to recover confirmation tokens returned by hosted platform write tools.' This routes the agent to the tool after a write. However, it doesn't name the alternative (e.g., whodb_platform_confirm for execution) or state explicit exclusions.

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