approval_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context about MCP-managed approvals and recency, but it does not describe the return shape, ordering, or any limits on how 'recent' is defined. This is comparable to the calibration example where annotations cover safety but return/pagination details are absent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the critical scoping qualifier without any filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only list tool, the description, complete parameter schema, and annotations together are nearly sufficient. The only gap is the vague term 'recent' and the absence of any return-format description, but the description's phrasing adequately implies a list result.

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 100%, and both parameters ('cli' and 'limit') already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('MCP-managed approval decisions recorded by the gateway'), and an explicit scope ('approvalStrategy: mcp_managed'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, which deal with validation, configuration, sessions, or model requests rather than approval decision history.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs to see recent gateway-recorded approvals for the MCP-managed strategy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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