list_vr_approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds useful context beyond them: the default state filter (state=requested), what a row contains (source record class and number), and the domain purpose (approvals drive VR state transitions). Pagination/return-size behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler: scope first, default second, row contents last. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers scope, default filter, and row shape. Only minor gaps remain, such as result size/pagination behavior, which the limit parameter schema already addresses.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description restates the default (pending/requested) and hints at the source record class, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('approval records (sysapproval_approver)') scoped to Vulnerability Response items, with the concrete record types (exception, risk-acceptance, false-positive). The VR scoping implicitly separates it from generic siblings like list_approvals, but no sibling is named so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 default-to-pending behavior is stated, which helps an agent understand the typical call, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_approvals, get_my_approvals, list_vr_exception_requests, or act_on_vr_approval. Usage is implied by the VR scope rather than spelled out.

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