list_pending_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it says nothing about read-only status, pagination, scoping by session, or whether the alias behaves identically to a newer tool. The 'legacy' flag is the only behavioral signal.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; the one clause spends its words repeating the name instead of front-loading scope or behavior.

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 values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the parameter's meaning and the tool's relationship to its siblings entirely undocumented. That is not enough for an agent to choose and invoke it correctly.

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% for the single optional session_id parameter, and the description never explains what supplying (or omitting) a session_id does to the result set. One optional parameter keeps the damage limited, but no compensation is provided.

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 text 'list pending actions' restates the tool name verbatim, so the only new information is the 'legacy alias' label. It does not say what a pending action is or how it differs from siblings like list_tasks or get_pending_approvals.

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?

Calling it a 'legacy alias' hints that it may be superseded, but no preferred alternative is named and no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given. An agent must guess between this and get_pending_approvals/list_tasks.

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