agentbus_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose (listing pending events) but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior under different conditions (e.g., empty results). The description is too minimal for a tool without 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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 existence of an output schema (which covers return values) and the tool's straightforward nature (listing pending events), the description provides the essential context. However, missing details such as filtering behavior or relationship to sibling tools (like agentbus_approve) could be added for completeness, even though the tool is simple.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. However, the description does not mention the parameters 'limit' or 'topic' at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional context or usage guidance, which is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'events pending human approval', making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting these events are 'hidden from standard poll', implying that other tools like agentbus_status show standard events.

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 when to use the tool—to view events that are not visible through the standard poll. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., agentbus_approve for approvals) provides implicit guidance. A higher score would require explicit when/when-not statements.

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