list_membership_requests

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 scope ('current org') and status ('pending'), but does not mention permissions, pagination behavior, ordering, or response structure. It also doesn't state that this is a read-only operation. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb. Ideal conciseness.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers the basics: what it lists and the scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about return format, pagination defaults, and permission requirements. It's minimally complete but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent about what to expect.

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 both parameters (page and per_page) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly defines the resource as 'pending requests from users asking to join the current org'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memberships (existing memberships) and get_pending_membership_requests_count (count only).

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 usage when you need to view pending membership requests for the current org, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that list_memberships is for active memberships or that get_pending_membership_requests_count provides just a count. The context is clear, but there's no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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