Metis — Get Pending Proposals

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

Describes sorting order (most recent first), returned fields (agent slug, rationale, diff summary), and truncation of diff summary to 200 chars. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it covers key behaviors but omits potential details like pagination or limits.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds sorting and field details. No redundant information, well-structured.

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?

Complete for a simple list tool with output schema (return values documented there). Covers sorting, fields, truncation, and scope. No missing critical details.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no parameters needed. With 0 params, baseline is 4.

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 skill improvement proposals awaiting review, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'pending proposals'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_proposal and reject_proposal by focusing on listing pending ones.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for creating or approving proposals.

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