List pending conclusions

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the fact that pending records are never returned by normal memory search is a useful behavioral caveat. With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already set, the description enriches understanding by clarifying scope and visibility, though it omits pagination or ordering details.

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 the core purpose, no filler. The extra sentence adds a valuable behavioral distinction without verbosity.

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?

Adequate for a simple list operation given annotations cover safety, but lacking parameter semantics and explicit sibling differentiation. An agent could call it correctly with defaults, but would be unsure about filtering options and when to prefer it over list_conclusions.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain any of the four parameters (tags, limit, offset, namespace), leaving an agent with no guidance on how to filter or paginate. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 a resource 'bounded approval-gated conclusion proposals', which clearly conveys the core function. The added note that pending records are never returned by normal search helps distinguish it from search_memory, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_conclusions, leaving slight ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

Implies this is the tool for pending conclusions via the phrase 'approval-gated' and the note about normal search, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like list_conclusions. It does not state exclusions or conditions that would guide selection between sibling tools.

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