glitchrupt_pending_approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It does add two useful traits: the response includes reminder timing in milliseconds, and the call does not emit a cue — the latter being a real side-effect disclosure not present in the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral caveat. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose plus the no-cue behavior. The only minor gap is that 'approval keys' and how this relates to glitchrupt_wait_for_approval are left undefined.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly spends no words on arguments.

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 ('List') and resource ('currently registered approval keys') plus the returned field (milliseconds to next reminders), which clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings wait_for_approval and resolve_approval. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than declared.

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 negative clause 'Does not play a cue' hints that this is the non-side-effecting inspection option (likely vs. glitchrupt_signal), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer it is a passive read of pending items, but nothing tells it whether to prefer this over glitchrupt_status or glitchrupt_wait_for_approval.

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