getNaniProposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Get proposals') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, return format, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavior undocumented.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though overly brief given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, even if it's insufficient for full 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?

Given 3 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, or behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (account, chainId, dao) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they influence the proposal retrieval. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get proposals for NANIDAO' restates the tool name 'getNaniProposals' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('proposals for NANIDAO') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get', which is implied in the name. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'intentProposeNani' or 'intentVoteNaniProposal', leaving ambiguity about what type of proposals are retrieved.

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. Sibling tools include 'intentProposeNani' (for creating proposals) and 'intentVoteNaniProposal' (for voting), but the description doesn't clarify if this tool is for listing, fetching details, or something else. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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