cor_get_my_pending_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic action and does not explain what 'pending' means, whether authentication is required, whether the tool is read-only, or what happens if there are no pending tasks. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a bit more context (e.g., indicating scope or behavior) without becoming verbose, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, but an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not clarify the meaning of 'pending tasks' or the scope (e.g., current user). The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still lacks completeness regarding behavioral context.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is adequate without adding extraneous detail.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('my pending tasks'), indicating it retrieves a user-specific subset of tasks. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'cor_get_task' (which gets a single task) or 'cor_search_tasks' (which searches across tasks), so Sibling differentiation is lacking.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cor_get_task' or 'cor_search_tasks'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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