list_pending_csrs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific scope and state of the listed CSRs, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or potential size. With the output schema present, this is adequate but not rich, so a 3.

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 sentence that starts with the verb 'List' and efficiently packs in the resource type, state, and approval context. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 no-parameter listing tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description fully specifies what is listed and under what condition. It doesn't need to cover return shape or safety, as those are handled by structured data, making it contextually complete.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The input schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%, so the description need not compensate; the zero-param baseline of 4 applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies a distinct resource type: 'cluster-join / add-on registration CSRs awaiting hub approval'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cluster_claims or list_pending_proposals, which cover different resources or scopes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to see pending CSRs for cluster-join or add-on registration awaiting hub approval. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific CSR scope gives clear usage context, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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