dingtalk_oa_approval_list_pending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core listing behavior and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or ordering applies, what fields are returned, or any authentication requirements. This leaves the agent without meaningful safety or behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action and object. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary ambiguity, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 description is minimally viable for a zero-parameter list tool: it identifies what is listed and the target audience. However, the absence of annotations, an output schema, and any clarification about the result format or relationship to sibling approval tools means the context is adequate but not complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; this aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出' = list) and a clearly defined resource ('待我审批的审批单' = approval forms pending my approval), which precisely conveys the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool dingtalk_oa_approval_list_initiated by explicitly scoping to pending 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 phrase '待我审批' implies the primary use case: retrieving approvals awaiting the user's action. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dingtalk_oa_approval_list_initiated, dingtalk_oa_approval_approve, or dingtalk_oa_approval_reject, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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