list_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a list/read operation, but does not state whether status filtering affects results, whether results have ordering or pagination, or anything about output shape. The mention of 'pending' is a behavioral clue, but it is shallow.

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, efficient sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices some useful detail.

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 minimally viable: calling it with no arguments should list pending intake items. However, the allowed status values, result format, and behavior when overriding the default are left undocumented, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 must compensate for the undocumented 'status' parameter. It mentions 'pending,' which matches the default value, but does not explain what other status values are allowed or how the parameter changes the result.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('current items pending in the intake queue'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is also distinguishable from sibling tools like intake_convert_file and apply_intake_proposal, which clearly do different work.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned. The intended context is only implied by the phrase 'current items pending,' which is not enough to clearly route an agent.

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