pilot_pending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that entries are typically from human-operated peers and that they are inbound and pending approval, which adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though the verb 'List' implies a safe read. The information is sufficient for a low-risk tool but not richly transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by pairing suggestions and contextual note. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete. It states what the tool lists, why those items appear (human peers), and how to act on them (approve/reject). This fully covers the likely use case without needing return-value details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers everything (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. This is the appropriate baseline score.

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 inbound handshakes waiting on your approval.' This is a specific verb + resource + scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pending handshakes rather than general find/lookup/search operations.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool: to see handshakes awaiting manual approval, and it explicitly pairs with pilot_approve and pilot_reject as next steps. It also mentions that most service agents auto-approve, giving helpful situational context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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