cache_list_pending_proposals

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden but provides minimal behavioral detail beyond listing and ordering. It does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or behavior when no proposals exist.

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 with no redundancy. Front-loaded key action and constraints. Every word earns its place.

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, description covers core purpose and filter but omits default limit (default 100 per schema) and return format. Adequate but incomplete given lack of output schema.

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%, so description adds limited value. It confirms optional cache_name filter and ordering but does not add syntax or format details beyond schema's descriptions.

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, specifies ordering (newest first), and identifies an optional filter. This differentiates it from sibling tools like cache_approve_proposal or cache_reject_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 use when needing pending proposals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache_get_proposal or cache_recent_changes. No guidance on when to avoid this tool.

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