preview_pending_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers the critical trait: the operation is non-destructive and does not clear the queue. It also lists the returned fields, though it omits whether permissions or widget installation are prerequisites.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the non-consuming behavior that matters most. The final sentence about the browser widget is mildly tangential but not wasteful.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields (id, timestamp, description, selector), which is exactly what's needed. It only lacks explicit prerequisites or comparison to sibling peek tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead describes the output fields, which is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Preview all pending feedback') with a key qualifier ('without consuming it') that distinguishes it from the sibling get_pending_feedback. The distinction is implied rather than naming the sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use ('to see what feedback has been submitted without clearing the queue'), which implicitly routes the agent away from the consuming variant. It never names get_pending_feedback or delete_pending_feedback directly, so selection depends on the agent inferring the contrast.

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