list_pending_collaboration_requests

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the tool is safe and returns only request pointers, not private context. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) do not contradict this. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements or error handling when session_id is invalid.

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 clear sentence and two short fragments. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and safety aspect but lacks detail on the output format (what a 'request pointer' is) and how parameters like ritual_strip, response_mode, and response_profile affect the response. With no output schema, more explanation would be helpful.

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 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'pending multi-agent handoff or reciprocal witness requests', and the scope 'for one session'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_collaboration_request or peer_witness.

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 mentions 'Safe: returns request pointers only, not private handoff context', which implies it can be called without risk. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing before accepting) or provide direct usage guidance.

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