legitify.list_pending_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the operation is a non-mutating list and that data comes from a 'local queue.' However, it does not describe return shape, ordering, pagination implications of the limit parameter, or what 'pending' means in this queue context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It could arguably include more guidance, but as far as conciseness and structure go, it is efficient and respects the reader's attention.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the returned list entries look like, what 'local queue' refers to, or how the optional limit behaves. For an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool, important context remains 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the limit parameter but does not mention it at all. The parameter name and min/max constraints make its purpose somewhat inferable, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('list') and resource ('pending attestation requests'), and the parenthetical '(from local queue)' adds operational scope that helps distinguish it from the sibling detail/action tools. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the basic list-vs-detail separation is clear.

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 description gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_pending_request_details or review_request. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or the intended workflow context, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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