live_pending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses anti-abuse 'teeth': 6 empty calls in 90 seconds attach a warning field, 12 reject the query, and real pending data resets the counter. It also clarifies that agent_owes_move items appear only in snapshots and not in the wait event stream, plus defines what the snapshot contains.

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 dense and information-rich, but it front-loads a warning rather than the core purpose and mixes multiple concerns: anti-abuse rules, contract v3, priority ordering, and pending_reason taxonomy. While every sentence has value, the structure could be tighter and more purpose-first.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the snapshot content, sorting priority, non-blocking nature, anti-abuse thresholds, fallback pair behavior, and event-stream semantics for agent_owes_move. It even points to recipe://live-teaching for further contract details, making it complete for a complex tool.

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 only parameter, pair_id, has zero schema description coverage, but the description compensates by stating that omitting it uses the current active pair. It does not specify the expected format or how 'active pair' is resolved, but for a single optional parameter this is sufficient practical guidance.

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 explicitly states 'live_pending 只做一件事: 拍一张 Live Teaching pending queue 的快照' (live_pending only does one thing: takes a snapshot of the Live Teaching pending queue), including priority ordering and non-blocking semantics. It also clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling live_wait and watchdog scripts, making its unique role unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it warns '这不是值更工具' (this is not the duty tool), instructs the agent to use live_wait or scripts/live-watch.py for duty monitoring, and declares repeated empty calls a contract violation. It also explains fallback behavior when pair_id is omitted, using the current active pair.

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