List Proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only; no side effects' and explains the open/closed status semantics and how a 403 with an escalation_id surfaces as a decision_request here. It stops short of describing pagination or result volume, but the behavioral core is unusually well covered for an unannotated 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then reference material (statuses, kinds, escalation mechanics) in a fairly tight block. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every sentence earns its place; the escalation paragraph is the only part that runs long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. The description covers the domain vocabulary (statuses, kinds), the escalation workflow, and the cross-tool trigger (403 from update_finding/create_risk_acceptance/submit_attestation/decide_proposal), leaving nothing essential for correct invocation missing.

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 67% and no parameter enums exist in the schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the valid status values and the kinds, and by explaining that an empty status returns everything. model_id is covered by the schema and server_version is undocumented, so it falls short of a 5 but clearly adds meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list proposals and escalations on a model) and clearly distinguishes itself from the create_proposal/decide_proposal/list_decisions siblings. An agent can tell this is a read-side poll of proposal state without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it (to poll the outcome of a proposal you raised, or of a judgment you were refused), and gives a negative instruction ('do not retry the refused call') plus the escalation polling loop until a person resolves it. This is prescriptive routing, not implied.

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