List held reporter updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description repeats 'Read-only' but adds real context: which message types are held, that text is exactly what the reporter will see, and the meaning of an empty list. The empty-list disclosure is genuinely useful behavior beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose before the row-shape detail and the routing hint. It is dense but every clause (message types, row fields, empty-list meaning) carries information, though it packs several concerns into a single sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the row fields and clarifying text semantics. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the routing to release_reporter_update, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional projectId, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (held reporter updates / pipeline messages waiting for review), and precisely scopes what it covers: messages held by projects in review mode. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as release_reporter_update and get_report_detail.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use before release_reporter_update', and explains the consequence of an empty result ('nothing is waiting, or the project sends updates automatically'). This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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