list_pending_actions

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint by stating it is read-only and adds context about pending confirmation workflow state. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining that it surfaces actions awaiting confirmation after a rename or delete.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the operational context. No wasted words or redundant 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?

With no parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation. The post-mutation use case completes the operational picture.

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 there is nothing the description needs to clarify beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline for zero parameters is satisfied.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('project rename/delete requests waiting for /ui confirmation'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_overview, list_projects, and list_open_threads.

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 explicitly states this is useful after rename_project or delete_project, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended use case is evident.

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