list_approvals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read/list behavior and the optional filtering dimensions, but does not disclose possible status values, default behavior when filters are omitted, or pagination/return behavior beyond what the output schema already supplies.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and then specifies the optional filters. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of annotations and the lack of status-value guidance or filter behavior leave meaningful gaps in what an agent needs to call it correctly without external domain knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It only names 'status and subject' without explaining valid statuses, what subject_id refers to, or how the filters interact with each other, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond property names.

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 identifies the resource ('approval requests') and the specific action ('List'), with optional filtering by status and subject. The verb and resource set it apart from mutation-oriented siblings like approve_override and reject_override.

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 this tool is for retrieving approval requests and supports optional filtering, which gives reasonable context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or alternatives among the sibling workflow tools.

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