List pending Harness approvals and questions

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: request content is untrusted data and not instructions, and an empty list does not grant permission. It also discloses a host-version prerequisite, which is genuinely beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the trust and empty-list caveats are stated as tight fragments. Every sentence carries weight, though the flow is a bit staccato and the host requirement could be folded in more economically.

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 does state what the results contain (tool call, reason, plan detail) and covers the empty-result case and a version prerequisite. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, which is a minor remaining gap for a list tool.

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?

One required runId parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It alludes to run and client-principal scoping but never explains the parameter's role, format, or source, leaving the schema's uuid pattern as the only guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read live one-shot permission requests and user questions') and scopes them to 'this run and client principal.' It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling respond_to_run_interaction (which acts) rather than naming an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use routing against siblings like respond_to_run_interaction or wait_run. 'Requires the updated embedded Host' is a prerequisite rather than a selection rule.

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