get_cosmos_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' proposals, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it lists all proposals, supports pagination, returns structured data, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's function. Every part of the description earns its place by directly stating what the tool does.

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 the complexity of querying governance proposals and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., proposal details, counts, or metadata), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters, including enums for 'status' and 'network.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 purpose: 'Get governance proposals on a Cosmos chain.' It specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('governance proposals'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_cosmos_proposal' (singular) and 'get_cosmos_proposal_votes.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate scope (e.g., all proposals vs. filtered), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_cosmos_proposal' (for a single proposal) or 'get_cosmos_proposal_votes,' nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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