memoryguard_list_pending_enrichments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and clarifies its position in the enrichment pipeline, but it does not explicitly state that the list call has no side effects, how 'pending' is determined, or what happens when there are no pending tasks.

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 core purpose is stated in one short, front-loaded sentence. The second sentence adds actionable workflow guidance and is slightly dense, but every clause contributes context needed for correct use.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides enough context about why to call it and what to do next. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists, and that omission is minor for a listing operation.

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%, so the input schema already documents limit, workspace, share_group_id, and agent_instance_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List pending memory enrichment tasks,' which clearly identifies both the action and the output. It also anchors the tool in a workflow ('after build_and_enrich returns host_action_required'), distinguishing it from related tools like apply_enrichments or enrichment_status.

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 gives a clear condition for when the tool matters—after build_and_enrich signals host_action_required—and instructs the host agent to proceed with apply_enrichments instead of asking the user to choose a CLI. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to rule out, but the workflow context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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