get_pending_experiments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description implies a read-only operation (getting data) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 (one short sentence). However, it is phrased as a question rather than a structured, imperative statement. While it captures the core function, it could be improved by being more direct (e.g., 'List all experiments awaiting approval.') without losing conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate but lacks details about the output format or any implied filters. For a list tool, it should at least mention what information is returned (e.g., experiment names, IDs). The description is complete enough for basic use but not thorough.

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, which matches the baseline score of 4. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter information. The schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 'What experiments are waiting for approval?' clearly indicates the tool lists pending experiments. It uses a specific verb-resource combination (get/list pending experiments) and distinguishes from siblings like complete_experiment or propose_experiment. However, it is phrased as a question rather than a declarative statement, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is minimal and does not include context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools like propose_experiment or complete_experiment might be more appropriate.

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