okf_list_proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'compact metadata', which gives some insight into output format, but doesn't elaborate on behavior or side effects. Given annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately and includes a qualifier about the return type. Perfectly concise.

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: list with optional filters. Annotations cover the read-only, idempotent nature, schema covers the parameters, and the description hints at the output being 'compact metadata'. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or ordering, but these are likely not critical for such a listing tool. Overall, it's reasonably complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline for a schema-covered 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?

The description states 'List compact metadata for stored authoring proposals,' which clearly identifies the action (List) and resource (authoring proposals), and adds 'compact metadata' to hint at return format. It is distinct from sibling 'okf_get_proposal' by being plural, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like okf_get_proposal or other list tools. The description doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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