list_pending_imports

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the returned fields (id, vendor, stage, processed/total counts) and the purpose of the id for disambiguating concurrent imports. It also discloses a transport-dependent behavior: source_path appears only over local stdio, while remote HTTP yields a progress summary without filesystem paths.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, gating condition second, output shape and transport differences last. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden explicitly and also covers the environment-specific variance in results. Combined with rich annotations and a zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to decide when to call this and how to interpret the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly presents this as a no-argument listing call without implying any hidden filters.

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 and resource ('List in-flight chat-history imports') with an explicit scope of what is included (awaiting processing or completion). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_pending_revisions, list_refinements, and list_pending, which cover different pending object types.

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 concrete triggers ('what imports are running, whether an export is done, or requests import progress') and a restrictive 'Use only when' framing that excludes other cases. It stops short of naming alternative tools, so an agent must infer what to call for non-import status questions.

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