pending_experiences

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so notably well: it discloses that successful review removes that exact version, failed/stale submissions persist, deferred IDs may be filtered, an empty result is not proof of an empty queue, and there is no lease (reviewers use revision checks). Gaps remain on return shape and pagination, but the mutation/concurrency semantics are richly covered.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes; no filler or repetition.

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 concurrency-sensitive queue tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers behavior well but leaves parameter meaning and return/pagination shape undocumented. Adequate on the hard parts, incomplete on the structured-field gaps.

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 three parameters (limit, project, exclude_ids) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate and largely does not. It hints at exclude_ids semantics ('a judge may temporarily exclude deferred IDs') but says nothing about limit or project, leaving their meaning unaddressed.

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 ('Get the oldest new or changed experiences awaiting LLM review') and characterizes ordering (oldest) plus scope (awaiting review), which implicitly distinguishes it from review_experience and get_experience. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Conveys implied context - this is the queue-fetching step for bounded incremental review work with concurrency safety - but never states when to prefer it over review_experience or get_experience, and gives no explicit exclusions. Usable for the target agent but leaves routing to inference.

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