nestor_tool_pending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: newest-first ordering, deduplication by phrasing, and the empty-list condition. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but for a simple queue-read operation the core behavior is well covered.

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, front-loaded with the core concept ('teach-queue'), and every clause earns its place by adding ordering, deduplication, or empty-state semantics. There is no filler 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?

The tool is a simple queue reader and the description gives the essential purpose and semantics. However, it lacks any parameter context, and with no output schema the return shape is only vaguely implied. It is adequate but has clear gaps around scoping and result format.

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 offers no explanation of the required 'app_id' parameter or the optional 'limit' parameter. It does not compensate for the schema's bare parameter definitions at all, so agent understanding of how to scope the queue or control result size is absent.

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 identifies this as a queue of natural-language intents that nestor_tool_route could not serve, with explicit ordering (newest first) and deduplication. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nestor_tool_route and nestor_tool_seal by showing it is the pending/review list feeding those actions.

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 conveys when to use it: to see unserved intents that a human should seal or reject. It implies this is the review step before nestor_tool_seal, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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