get_actionable_pins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the three categories of pins returned but does not mention potential behaviors like pagination, sorting, performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'). The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences plus a bulleted list, highly concise and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the overall purpose, the list details the categories, and the final sentence gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, the three categories, and usage context. It might be missing information on ordering or default limit, but for basic usage it is complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the 'mode' parameter through the three categories and their meanings (e.g., 'auto-agent' corresponds to pins sent via Send to Agent or YOLO mode). This goes beyond the enum labels in the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose ('Get all pins waiting for developer attention') and distinguishes three clear categories that align with the 'mode' parameter. It also positions the tool as the starting point for both auto-agent and manual workflows, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_pending_critiques or get_selected_pins.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('starting point for both auto-agent workflows and manual review sessions'), implying it is the primary entry point for actionable pins. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives among sibling tools, which would make it a 5.

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