get_pending_approvals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly signals a non-mutating read, and the approval-gated scope is useful context, but there is no mention of whether results are paginated, filtered by caller, or how approvals are actioned afterward.

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 tight sentence with the resource and its scoping condition front-loaded and zero wasted words.

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 detail is not needed in the description, and a zero-param list tool has little else to specify. The only meaningful gap is the unaddressed overlap with list_pending_actions.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The scope constraint (CHAT_APPROVAL mode) is the only behavioral input and it is stated.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (pending actions requiring human approval) with the CHAT_APPROVAL scope qualifier, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling list_pending_actions, which reads as a near-synonym.

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 CHAT_APPROVAL mode phrase implies the operating context in which this tool is meaningful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus list_pending_actions, or what to do after retrieving the list (e.g., route to reject_approval).

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