harness_list_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output (diffs, badge) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for informed selection.

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?

Single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. No wasted words; immediately conveys core functionality.

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's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description provides a basic understanding (pending changes, diffs, badge). However, it omits parameter semantics (status filtering) and does not indicate whether the output is a list or count alone. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only project_path documented). Description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain the status parameter or how to use it. Agent cannot infer that status filters the list (e.g., pending vs approved).

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?

Description states the tool lists pending changes with diffs and a count badge, clearly indicating the resource (pending changes) and what is produced. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' but it's implied. Differentiates from siblings by focusing on pending changes, which is not covered by other harness_* tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., harness_status, harness_verify). Description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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