list_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering (oldest first), the endpoint, and an important auth quirk: 401 on a multi-user deployment by design, pointing to propose_action for context. It does not explain pagination or empty-list behavior, but with an output schema present that is less critical.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded, followed by a focused auth caveat. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and a key auth behavior. Minor gaps remain around empty-state behavior or link to approval actions, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 a specific resource (pending action proposals), status filter (awaiting operator approval), ordering (oldest first), and backing endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this listing from the approval/rejection siblings by emphasizing 'pending' and 'awaiting operator approval'.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this to review proposals awaiting approval before using approve_proposal or reject_proposal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or direct naming of the alternatives for acting on proposals.

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