list_pending_approvals

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

The annotation readOnlyHint:true already indicates safety, but the description reinforces this with 'No approval needed — read-only' and adds useful behavioral detail about the output: each entry includes the approval URL. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying exactly what data is returned.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a usage note and safety clarification. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool lists, what information it provides (approval URL), when to call it, and its read-only nature. With an output schema present and no parameters, nothing important is missing for this simple tool.

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, and the schema is an empty object. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no parameter explanation is needed. The description does not attempt to add param semantics, which is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all OliveTin actions currently waiting for human approval, with the URL the human must visit to approve or deny.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on 'pending approvals' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_olivetin_actions'.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Call this after triggering a destructive action to get the approval link.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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