list_proposals

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

The description reveals specifics about each entry (path, destination, overwrite status, size, preview) and explains the effect of setting includeDelta to false, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. This provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 sentences, no wasted words, the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary detail like the preview feature and pattern usage guidance.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and parameter behaviors. The limit parameter's schema description already mentions totalMatched and truncated flag, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It's sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical effect of includeDelta (saving file reads) and the purpose of pattern (scoping to folder/file shape), improving understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'pending proposals', making the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resolve_proposal' and 'propose_wikilinks' by focusing on listing, not acting on proposals.

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 advises using the pattern filter when the queue is large, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., 'list_unprocessed' for unprocessed items), leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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