proposals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering, filter capability, and the inclusion of verified tally params, plus the API version rationale. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, but that's implied and not a contradiction.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the core purpose, then provides rationale and extra parameters. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

While the description covers ordering, filter, tally params, and API version, it doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior. Since there's no output schema, this is a gap, but the tool is simple and the provided context is reasonably complete for basic usage.

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 only parameter 'status' is an enum, and the description merely says 'status filter' without explaining the enum meanings or default behavior. The schema already provides the enum list, so the description adds little beyond what's in the schema, but the parameter is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 governance proposals, specifies ordering (newest first) and a status filter. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on proposals, and no sibling appears to cover the same resource.

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?

It explains why gov/v1 is used over v1beta1, implying this tool is the correct choice for modern proposals. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling list doesn't suggest a direct alternative.

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