gardener_proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only'. It adds detail on the kinds of proposals returned, which is valuable context beyond annotations.

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 with an inline list, no redundancy. It is efficient though the list is long; still appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 the simple structure (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how to use it, including a reference to the companion tool gardener_apply.

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 covers the 'kind' parameter fully with enums and description. The main description lists the same enum values but doesn't add deeper semantics beyond what the schema provides, hitting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states 'List pending gardener proposals' with a comprehensive list of proposal kinds, clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings 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 explicitly says 'Review, then apply or dismiss each with gardener_apply', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool and how to proceed. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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