quipu_list_proposals

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it never mentions that the optional `plan` flag computes a blast radius while writing nothing, which is the tool's most consequential behavioral nuance.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the filtering behavior is appended after the core purpose. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and clear read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The one gap is that the blast-radius `plan` capability — the reason to pick this tool for impact analysis — is invisible from the description alone.

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 100%, so all three parameters, including the detailed `plan` and `risk_threshold` semantics, are fully documented in the schema. The description's only parameter claim is the status filter, which merely restates the enum.

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?

"List schema evolution proposals" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the status values. It reads clearly against siblings like quipu_accept_proposal and quipu_reject_proposal, though it never names them to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read side of the proposal workflow, but the description never says when to prefer it over quipu_propose_schema_change or the accept/reject pair, nor does it hint at when the heavier `plan` analysis is worth requesting.

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