list_pending_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: not that this is a read-only operation, not whether it returns all pending items or a page, not whose actions are visible. The only behavioral fact conveyed is the approval-waiting filter, which already follows from the name.

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 short fragment with zero filler, front-loaded and unambiguous. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, return-value detail is legitimately out of scope. Still, for a queue-inspection tool with no annotations, the description should note that it is a safe read and how it relates to propose_action/outcome_report; as written it is minimally usable but incomplete.

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 elaborate on. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related gap exists.

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 phrase 'Actions waiting for human approval' defines the resource precisely and disambiguates what 'pending' means, which the bare name 'list_pending_actions' does not. It is clear but never differentiates itself from siblings such as propose_action, which is what generates these pending items.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus propose_action or outcome_report, and no mention of prerequisites, polling cadence, or after-approval follow-up. The agent must infer that this is a read of the approval queue from the name alone.

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