list_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only behavioral signal. 'List' conveys a read-only operation, and 'awaiting human approval' describes the state of returned items. It does not disclose output fields, ordering, or any side effects, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the subordinate clause explains why the tool exists in the workflow.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what is listed and why. However, it omits the effect of the limit parameter and does not explicitly describe the return contents, leaving a few details to inference.

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%, and the description does not mention the optional 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema constraints.

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 a specific resource ('memories awaiting human approval'), and explains the purpose: review, approve, or reject. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall or approve.

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: whenever pending memories need human review. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'awaiting human approval' is a strong contextual signal that separates this from general memory listing.

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