approval_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which sufficiently convey the tool's safe and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it lists 'recent' decisions, which provides a temporal qualifier but is somewhat vague. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to understanding. It is as concise as possible while remaining clear.

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 with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, it does not specify what the response contains (e.g., fields in each decision) or how 'recent' is defined (e.g., time window). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning both parameters (cli and limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states it lists recent MCP-managed approval decisions recorded by the gateway. The verb 'list' and the specific resource 'MCP-managed approval decisions' are precise, and the mention of 'approvalStrategy: mcp_managed' distinguishes it from any potential sibling tools that might list other types of approvals.

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 indicates the tool is for listing MCP-managed approvals but does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The context is implied but not fully articulated.

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