gardener_proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only.' It does not add deeper behavioral details beyond the list of proposal kinds, but given the read-only nature already annotated, no additional disclosure is needed. No contradictions detected.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action 'List pending gardener proposals' and then provides a parenthetical list of examples. It is longer than minimal but every example adds context; however, the list could be trimmed for brevity without losing key meaning.

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 no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description covers the tool's purpose, examples of proposal types, and the follow-up action (gardener_apply). It could mention default behavior when no 'kind' is specified (that is in the schema) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'kind' parameter with a basic description. The tool description enriches the parameter semantics by explaining many proposal kinds (e.g., 'merge/consolidate duplicate memories' maps to 'merge'/'consolidate', 'archive stale memories' maps to 'archive'), giving agents a better understanding of valid filter values.

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 clearly states 'List pending gardener proposals' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates proposal types (merge, archive, digest, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling tools like gardener_apply (which acts on proposals) and gardener_request (which creates them).

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 provides clear guidance by stating 'Review, then apply, dismiss or hide each with gardener_apply', which tells the agent when to use this tool (to list) and what to do next. It also gives examples of proposal kinds that signal when to check this tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with gardener_request.

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