cache_list_pending_proposals

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the read nature and ordering (newest first) but omits details about permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the instance is inactive. Carries basic transparency without contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no extra words. Could slightly improve by noting default limit or maximum, but remains efficient.

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 listing tool with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and ordering. However, it could mention pending status explicitly (though name implies it) and output format.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description repeats 'optionally filter by cache_name' but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pending cache proposals, newest first, with optional filtering by cache_name. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like cache_approve_proposal or cache_get_proposal.

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 usage for the active instance with optional filters but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache_get_proposal or cache_list. No direct statements about when not to use it.

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