list_proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope 'all' proposals but does not disclose return format, pagination, or network default behavior beyond schema. It meets the baseline but does not enrich context significantly.

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 that front-loads the core action. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema. The description adequately explains what it does. It could mention that it returns a list/array of proposals or that the network defaults to mainnet, but these are minor gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'network' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter syntax or behavior, which is fine given the high coverage. 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's purpose: 'List all network governance proposals.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('network governance proposals'), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_proposal, which retrieves a single 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that get_proposal should be used for a specific proposal, nor does it clarify that this is the go-to for a broad overview. There is no when-not or exclusion context.

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