skool_members_pending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also implies a read-only operation via 'List'. It does not detail pagination or response format, but for a simple list operation, this is sufficient.

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 two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately gives the critical prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema. The description explains the purpose and auth requirement, making it complete for the agent to understand when and how to use it. The absence of an output schema is not a significant gap since the name implies a list of requests.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'community', including its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('pending membership requests'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skool_members_list (which lists members) and skool_members_approve/reject (which modify membership).

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 provides a key usage condition: it requires auth cookies with admin/moderator access. This implies the tool is for privileged users. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say 'use this instead of skool_members_list', but the resource name makes the intended use clear.

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