List pending approvals

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

No annotations provided; the description lacks behavioral details such as default filtering (e.g., does it return all statuses? only pending?), pagination, or ordering. It only states the basic action without explaining behavior beyond the obvious.

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 (6 words) but under-informative. It earns its place only partially; while it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 has two optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It does not explain what the list contains, how to filter, or expected output behavior.

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 description does not mention any parameters despite two being defined in the schema with 0% coverage. The agent gets no guidance on using the 'status' filter or 'project' parameter, which are crucial for effective invocation.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'approval requests' with a qualifier 'created by gated provider actions', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_action or reject_action.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dashclaw_wait_for_approval or approve_action. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection.

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