list_pending

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint is true and the description says 'Show actions,' indicating no side effects. While it doesn't add extra context like 'does not modify anything,' the annotation already covers this, so no contradiction and adequate transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff or redundant details.

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?

Given that there are no parameters and the output schema is present (though not detailed), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The simplicity of the tool makes the description 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 schema coverage is 100%. There is nothing to describe, and the description correctly omits any parameter details, making it fully aligned.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Show actions that are prepared and awaiting approval.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('actions that are prepared and awaiting approval'), which distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_send and commit_action. It is clear and unambiguous.

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 implies usage (e.g., when you want to review pending actions), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling context, it is obvious, but the description alone lacks explicit 'use when' guidance.

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