list_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it does not require special permissions. The word 'List' hints at non-mutating behavior, but the description omits important details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or any prerequisites, leaving the safety profile underspecified.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy, and every word contributes to the tool's function. This is exemplary conciseness, with no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple list tool with well-documented parameters, the description provides the essential purpose and a hint of output content. However, with no output schema, it does not fully specify what fields are returned (e.g., proposal IDs, titles), which could be crucial for follow-up actions like get_proposal. It also lacks behavioral transparency, making the overall context only partially 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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning 'status and vote counts' in the output, which is not directly about the parameters. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents parameters, and the description adds no conflicting or extra parameter meaning.

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's function as listing voting proposals for a Clink group, using the specific verb 'List' and naming the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_proposal (single proposal) and cast_vote (voting action), and the additional detail about showing status and vote counts reinforces its read-only listing purpose.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool to list proposals for a group. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, the purpose is unambiguous. The presence of sibling tools like get_proposal could benefit from an explicit contrast, but the core usage is evident from the verb and resource.

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