glm_5_list_pending_approvals

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It specifies that it lists proposals requiring 'exact matching approval,' indicating a read operation and a specific condition. It does not mention non-destructive nature, but 'list' implies safety. A score of 4 reflects good transparency given no annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the essential condition. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the condition for the listed items. No additional context is necessary.

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 has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline is 4, and the description correctly provides no extraneous parameter info.

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 identifies the tool's function: list pending change proposals that require exact matching approval. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'glm_5_propose_changes' (proposing) and 'glm_5_apply_approved_patch' (applying), establishing a unique resource and condition.

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 the tool should be used when checking for pending approvals needing exact matching, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for different scenarios. It provides adequate context without exclusions or comparisons.

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