list_fork_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the tool's read-only nature and scope of coverage. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are not expected for a listing tool. The description is transparent about what it does and does not do.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then unique value, scope, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without verbosity, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly explains the query type, supported forks, and parameter format. The output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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 has zero descriptions for the 'fork_name' parameter. The description compensates fully by providing examples of valid fork names (e.g., 'Cancun', 'Taproot') and noting it accepts canonical and consensus-layer aliases, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List every proposal activated by a named blockchain fork' and emphasizes the unique value of mapping proposals to forks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_protocol_docs, resolve_contract, and resolve_proposal.

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 explicit use cases (e.g., 'What's in Cancun?') and scope (Ethereum and Bitcoin forks). While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, it effectively contrasts with manual cross-referencing, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool.

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