list_pending_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states whether this is read-only vs. mutating, whether it returns a list, what the output contains, or how filtering behaves. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral traits beyond the three filter values. For a listing tool, the read-only nature is implicit but unstated.

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?

A single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that conveys the purpose and filter options. No waste, appropriately brief.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The tool has only one optional parameter. However, the description doesn't convey whether the list is read-only, ordering, pagination, or any caveats. Given the simplicity (1 param) and presence of an output schema, this is adequate but thin.

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. It lists the three valid status values, which partially documents the 'status' parameter's allowed values. However, it adds no detail on format, case sensitivity, or default behavior beyond the schema's own 'default: pending' — so the value added over the schema is marginal.

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 says it lists plans by status with three allowed values ('pending', 'approved', 'rejected'). Verb+resource is clear ('lista planos por status'), but it only vaguely distinguishes from siblings like approve_change/reject_change — those are action tools while this is a listing tool, but the description doesn't make that contrast explicit. It does communicate the core function adequately.

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 status values ('pending', 'approved', 'rejected') imply the usage context — an agent filtering across plan states. However, there are no explicit when-to-use instructions, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling alternatives. The context is reasonably implied but not stated.

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