get_pending_critiques

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: return fields (id, page URLs, deploy hash), ordering (newest-first), and pricing/licensing (free, but gating at enqueue). This is comprehensive for a list tool.

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 concise sentences: purpose, return fields, ordering/pricing. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: return fields, ordering, and licensing. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, projectId, is already well-described in the input schema (optional filter). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states it lists pending critique requests, specifies the source (deploy-hook), and the context of the current license. Verb 'lists' and resource 'pending critique requests' are precise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'complete_critique_request' by focusing on pending items.

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 implies usage via '/critique-latest-deploy' and notes pricing implications, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'complete_critique_request' or 'create_critique_pin'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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