zhiqi_collab_approvals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only and that it does not expose approval commands, preventing false expectations. It does not describe output format or data freshness, but covers the essential behavioral constraint.

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: one statement of purpose plus one essential limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and the key read-only nature is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the critical behavioral limitation. It could mention what the response looks like, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a significant gap.

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%, but the only parameter is optional and limited to a single enum value 'pending'. The description's phrase '待我审批' provides the semantic meaning for that enum value, effectively explaining what the scope parameter represents, even though it does not name the parameter directly.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only viewer for pending approvals ('查看待我审批（只读）') and explicitly distinguishes it from approval-execution tools by stating it does not provide approval commands. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates it from sibling tools like collab_accept or collab_respond.

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 provides explicit usage boundaries: approvals/rejections must be completed by a human on the web, and this endpoint does not offer approval commands. This clearly tells an agent when not to use this tool, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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