list_access_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'list' without disclosing pagination behavior, whether both requests and grants are returned, or any other behavioral details such as authentication or result structure.

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 short sentence, making it concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It is not verbose, but it lacks necessary details, so it earns only a mid-level score for structure.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the difference between requests and grants, default sorting/pagination, or how filters like 'type' and 'aasm_state' interact.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description does not provide any additional context for 'q', 'page', 'type', 'per_page', or 'aasm_state', leaving moderate coverage uncompensated.

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 resource ('access requests and grants'), but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_access_grants' and may even conflate the two. A clear verb and resource are present, but sibling differentiation is lacking.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_access_grants' or 'get_access_request', nor does it mention any filters or limitations.

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