list_proposals

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists proposals but omits details like read-only nature, response format, order, pagination, or filtering. The minimal description does not adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists all saved proposals used as style references. While it could mention sorting or default behavior, the simplicity of the tool makes the description nearly complete for basic 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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra meaning but also does not mislead.

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 tool's purpose: listing all saved proposals that serve as style references. This verb+resource combination (list proposals) is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_proposal, save_proposal, draft_proposal, and delete_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_proposal or load_examples. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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