roiq_list_pending

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses default filtering and that all=true includes approved proposals. Does not mention side effects or auth, but is adequate for a read-only 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Covers behavior and parameter adequately for a simple listing tool. No output schema or annotations, but given low complexity, it is sufficiently complete. Minor lack of return format or error handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the boolean parameter's effect: 'ver todas (incluye las aprobadas por Cristhyan que ya puedes ejecutar)'. Adds significant meaning beyond type-only schema.

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 proposals from the 'Operator' mailbox, distinguishes default pending view from all view, and differentiates from siblings like roiq_get_proposal or roiq_list_items.

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 explains default behavior (pending only) and when to use all=true, including what 'all' contains (approved by Cristhyan). Lacks direct comparison to alternatives but provides enough context.

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