list_pending_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose 'Access level: read' plus the return shape, which is genuine safety context. However, it says nothing about result limits, ordering, pagination, or whether pending review items are scoped to the caller, so important behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The 'Returns: JSON array...' line is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 zero-required-parameter read/lookup tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and filter targets. It is nearly complete; only routing to/from sibling tools is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents type, status, and project_id semantics (including valid values). The description only restates the filter dimensions and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 pending proposals for human review') and names the filterable dimensions, so an agent can separate it from siblings like create_pending_proposal or approve_proposal. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other list-type siblings (e.g. query_rules), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'for human review' scope and the optional filters imply when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. use query_rules for already-approved rules). Usage must be inferred.

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