List pending questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it explains that rows with a 'consent_tool' are write-consent approvals and that answering with always_allow=true stops future prompts for that tool. This goes beyond the structured 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then adds one crucial clarification about consent_tool behavior. No filler or redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the special consent_tool semantics. It doesn't mention return format or pagination, but the tool is straightforward and the provided context is sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage for the single parameter (agent_id) is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description doesn't add any additional param-specific details, but with full schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the agent's runs that are paused awaiting a human approval or input (the HITL queue).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_runs by focusing on pending approvals. The term 'HITL queue' adds precision.

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—when you need to see the HITL queue—and provides context about consent_tool rows. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools like list_runs or answer_pending_input, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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