List Swift Evolution proposals

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description does not need to restate it. It adds real value by enumerating the valid status values, but it says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset) or the shape/format of the response, which are the behaviors not covered by annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the filter detail parenthesized, so nothing is wasted. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally informative, but the structure is 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 read-only list tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description is broadly adequate. The gaps are pagination semantics (limit/offset defaults/caps) and routing among the three closely related swift_evolution siblings, both of which the agent needs to call it well.

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 only 25% (just 'format'), so the schema leaves status, limit, and offset as bare types. The description partially compensates by enumerating the status values (Implemented, Accepted, Rejected, Active review), which the schema does not do, but limit and offset remain undocumented anywhere.

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 a clear verb+resource ('List proposals') and scopes the optional status filter, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from its close sibling apple_swift_evolution_filter, which appears designed for the same filtering job, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

'optionally filter by status' implies usage context (browse the corpus, narrow by status), which is more than nothing. But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no routing to apple_swift_evolution_get (single proposal) or apple_swift_evolution_filter, leaving the agent to guess which of the three to call.

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