list_pending_experiences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It describes the output includes duplicate hints, which adds some transparency, but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like pagination, permissions, or the exact meaning of '待审批'.

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 information without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 tool is a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It adequately covers the purpose and includes an additional note about duplicate hints, but misses usage context relative to siblings.

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?

With zero parameters and no schema to describe, the description needs no parameter information. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 a specific verb '列出' (list) and resource '待审批的经验草稿' (pending-experience drafts). It also indicates that the output will include duplicate indicators, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_all_experiences or search_experience.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_all_experiences or search_experience. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but no explicit usage guidelines or exclusions are provided.

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