list_governance_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states 'list' without noting whether it is read-only, paginated, or has rate limits. The minimal phrase does not reveal any behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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 overly concise to the point of being under-informative. It consists of a single generic phrase that fails to justify its brevity with meaningful content.

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 five optional parameters and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure (despite having an output schema) or how filters interact. The tool is underspecified for effective agent usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no details about the five parameters (page, limit, proposal_status, voter, depositor). It only says 'with optional filters', which is too vague to help an agent understand parameter meaning or usage.

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 it lists governance proposals with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_governance_deposits and list_governance_votes. However, it does not specify the scope of proposals (e.g., active or all) or enumerate the filters.

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 such as get_governance_proposal or other list tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, expected usage scenarios, or exclusions.

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