botdigit_list_proposal_drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are limited to drafts in a pending-approval state within the caller's workspace, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or permission requirements for a listing operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state constraint ('waiting for human approval or rejection') arrives before the workspace scope, so nothing needs trimming.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, read-only list) and the description conveys what is listed and under what state filter. Since no output schema exists, it could say more about what a draft record contains or whether results are paginated, but the gap is minor for this complexity level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implicit workspace scoping. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 (List), resource (proposal drafts), and a state qualifier (staged, waiting for human approval or rejection) plus workspace scoping. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like botdigit_stage_proposal_draft and botdigit_approve_proposal_draft, but never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read step that precedes botdigit_approve_proposal_draft or rejection, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the approve/stage siblings, and no exclusions.

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