skill_tasks_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what 'pending' means but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe to call repeatedly, or any side effects. The implied read behavior is reasonable but not confirmed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose immediately. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately defines the tool's scope. It could optionally describe the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of task objects'), but the lack does not critically hinder understanding given the tool's low complexity.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters; it does not explain how 'limit' or 'skill_id' relate to the concept of 'pending' tasks.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'pending/actionable skill tasks', further defining what that means (paused executions, recent failures). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'skill_tasks_list' which likely lists all tasks.

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 when to use the tool by specifying it lists only pending tasks, but it does not explicitly contrast with 'skill_tasks_list' or state when not to use it. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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