list_pending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior annotations cannot: pending captures are memories that do not yet 'count' until reviewed, which tells the agent the result set is provisional and action is required downstream. It stops short of describing ordering or result shape.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then usage, then hand-off tools. Every clause carries routing value with no repetition of schema content.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what the resource is, when to invoke it, and the accept/reject follow-up. Only the return shape (fields per pending capture) is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the annotations and fully documented schema.

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 `limit` (default 20, tunable for full audit vs quick check-in) and `space` (auto-detected if omitted) are fully documented there. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and defines the domain concept: 'List pending captures: memories waiting for review before they count.' That distinguishes it from list_pending_imports and list_pending_revisions by using the 'captures'/'memories' framing, though it never explicitly contrasts with those near-identical siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants to audit what got captured') with concrete user phrases, plus the follow-up path: `confirm_memory` to accept, `forget` to reject. An agent knows both when to call this and what to do next with the results.

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