List Avalanche Community Proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it is offline (no network dependency) and sourced from a specific repository. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of the data source and availability, though it does not discuss pagination or limits, which are minor for a list tool.

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 three sentences long, packs the core purpose, output fields, and usage examples with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, making it scannable for an agent.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned (number, title, status, track, authors, replaces/dependencies). It also explains the offline nature and example queries. Minor omissions like pagination or ordering are not significant for a list tool, so the description is largely complete.

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 has only 50% coverage (track described, status not). The description compensates by explicitly listing the allowed values for both status and track, enriching the meaning of both parameters beyond the schema. This bridges the gap left by the missing status description.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'ACPs', enumerates the structured fields returned, and mentions the offline parsing from avalanche-foundation/ACPs. It distinguishes from sibling avax_acp_lookup by focusing on listing all proposals, though it does not explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete example queries ('which upgrades are live?', 'what changed in Etna/Fortuna?') that frame when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples give clear contextual guidance for listing ACPs versus more targeted lookups.

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