guardentry_list_pending

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation through the verb 'List' and clarifies the filter scope ('pending... awaiting dashboard approval'), but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, pagination, or return format. This is acceptable for a simple listing tool but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description provides the essential purpose. However, it does not explain what an 'API action' is, how results are presented, or when to prefer this over the sibling action_status tool, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'status' parameter has a description with enum values and default). The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The schema already explains the filter and default.

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 'List pending API actions awaiting dashboard approval' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (pending API actions), clearly defining its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like guardentry_list_risks (risks vs actions) and guardentry_action_status (status of a specific action vs list of pending).

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 implies usage when you need to view pending API actions awaiting approval, but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance relative to sibling tools like guardentry_action_status or guardentry_confirm_policy. There are no alternatives mentioned, so the context is only implied.

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