itcons_list_pending_workorders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming 'no data is modified' and revealing the internal status value (4). However, it does not disclose limitations like pagination default behavior or what 'private' implies.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundant information.

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?

Given the 9 parameters and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It omits details on return format, how 'private' filters work, and pagination nuances. Schema covers parameter descriptions, but overall context for a new agent is insufficient.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The general note about pending status 4 is helpful context but not directly about parameters.

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 states the tool lists pending work orders from Itcons.app, specifying the exact status (4) and that no data is modified. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like itcons_search_workorders which likely cover broader scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as itcons_search_workorders. It does not mention that for non-pending work orders the search tool should be used, leaving the agent without explicit decision criteria.

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