pending_outcomes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only surfacing operation or a mutation, what the required journal_text must contain, or what form the surfaced outcomes take. The 'without this the loop never accumulates' line hints at consequence but gives no operational detail.

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 core scope (unclosed decisions from the journal) is front-loaded before the motivational tail. The only cost is the opaque 'U1' tag, which consumes space without informing an agent.

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 tool whose sole input is an undocumented string and which has no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what journal_text expects and roughly what is returned. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'из журнала' but never clarifies whether journal_text is raw journal content, a path, or an identifier, nor what format it expects. The schema provides no help, so this gap is real.

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 does identify a concrete action: surface unclosed decisions (⏳) from the journal. However, the framing 'Сёрфейсер петли U1' is undefined internal jargon that doesn't map to a recognizable verb+resource, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like loop_status, close_decision_card, or calibrated_consult_journal. Purpose is inferable but murky.

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 phrase '«вернись и закрой»' and the warning that outcomes otherwise 'hang forever' imply a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent is left to guess how this relates to close_decision_card or decision_record.

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