paperclip_list_approvals

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden; it only says 'List all pending and resolved approval requests' and does not state read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, required permissions, or any side effects. The verb 'List' hints at a read operation, but the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond that.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core operation ('List') and the resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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, fully documented parameter, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is the lack of an explicit return shape, but this is not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter fully with a status enum and description 'Filter by status', so the schema already documents parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('approval requests'), which is distinct from mutation-focused siblings like paperclip_create_approval and paperclip_approval_decision. It is unambiguous about the operation type, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 phrase 'List all pending and resolved approval requests' implies this is the tool for retrieving approval data, and the optional status filter suggests scoping usage. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of related approval tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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