proposals_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Listing' implies a non-mutating operation, which is clear. However, it doesn't clarify details like order of results, whether it includes historical proposals, or behavior when no proposals exist. It's adequate but lacks depth.

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?

A single, clear sentence in an active voice. It contains no fluff and immediately conveys the action and the target resource. Perfectly concise.

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 a simple tool with only one optional parameter, the description is sufficient for basic usage. It doesn't mention any default order or if there's a way to filter by status beyond 'pending,' but that's minor for a listing tool. It's complete for its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'limit' well-documented (range, default). The description doesn't need to add much. The parameter's meaning is immediately clear from the schema, so the description adds little extra 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 clearly states the tool lists memory proposals pending human review, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'memory proposals'. It could better distinguish from 'knowledge_pending' but the scope ('awaiting human review') adds useful context that differentiates it from siblings.

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 implies a read-only listing action suitable for review workflows. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like search or knowledge_pending, but the term 'awaiting human review' indirectly signals its purpose. No explicit exclusions to siblings are provided.

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