list_pending_requests

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

The description discloses two important behavioral traits beyond the basic listing function: it mentions that each request includes an 'available_actions list so you know valid statuses,' and it warns about server-side pagination potentially making the list incomplete if total exceeds limit. These are useful insights that go beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the exact shape of a request item, which would be more complete.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief note on return content, then parameter explanations, and a final pagination caveat. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary details in an organized manner, fitting the 'appropriately sized and front-loaded' criterion perfectly.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to cover return values and behavior. It mentions the available_actions list and pagination behavior, which are key aspects, but it does not describe the full structure of each request (e.g., request ID, submission date). For a simple list tool with two parameters, this is a minor gap, so the description is largely complete but not exhaustive.

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 schema provides no descriptions for 'limit' and 'offset', so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by explaining each parameter: 'limit: Max results to return (default: 50, max: 200)' and 'offset: Pagination offset (default: 0).' This adds critical details like the maximum limit and defaults that are not available in the schema, making the parameter semantics fully clear.

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 tool's function: 'List pending approval requests waiting for this member's decision.' It uses a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (pending approval requests), and the scope ('waiting for this member's decision') differentiates it from sibling tools like list_processes or get_request_details. The name itself is also descriptive, but the description adds necessary context about the decision scope.

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 clear context by specifying the tool is for listing requests 'waiting for this member's decision,' which implies use when you need to see approvals requiring action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently defined to distinguish it from related tools like submit_decision or get_request_details. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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