proposals_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read/list operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose behaviors like default limit, ordering, pagination, or what fields are returned. Since this is a straightforward list, the lack of detail is not critical, but more context would improve transparency.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and resource. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not describe the return value or the workflow around proposals (e.g., what to do with the results, how they were created). Given there is no output schema, this information would be useful for complete understanding.

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 has one optional parameter 'limit' with integer constraints, but no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameter's meaning. The tool description does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving semantic ambiguity. The parameter is self-evident from its name, but the description fails to add any 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' with a clear resource: 'memory proposals awaiting human review.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_propose (which creates proposals) and memory_status (which shows overall status). The scope is precise: only proposals in a pending review state.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to see memory proposals that have not yet been human-reviewed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that knowledge_pending exists for knowledge proposals or that memory_propose is for creating proposals. There's no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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