list_pending_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly marks the operation read-only and states the returned fields (change_id, SQL, expiry remaining), which gives the agent a clear behavioral model. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results, but that is minor for a zero-parameter list operation with an output schema.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with no fluff. The core purpose comes first, and the read-only note plus output contents are placed immediately after.

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-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the state of the items, and the key fields returned. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema is empty and has no parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description instead adds value by explaining what each listed item contains, which is appropriate given there are no inputs to describe.

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 clear verb ('List') with a specific resource ('proposed changes that are still awaiting confirmation'), and distinguishes the tool from its siblings like run_query and confirm_change by focusing specifically on pending changes. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It clearly implies this tool is for reviewing proposed changes before they are confirmed, and the read-only note helps the agent understand it is safe to inspect. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so I cannot give a 5.

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