awaiting_ack

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that; it describes a read-only listing operation. It adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the default role, exclusions, the 'obligation' field for entries that are also action_required, and the behavior of the 'fields' projection. This goes far beyond the annotation and makes the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 long but each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the core purpose, then details exclusions, parameter behaviors, and usage advice. It is structured logically, though it could be slightly tighter without losing information. The verbosity is justified by the tool's complexity and the lack of schema coverage.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what it excludes, how each parameter affects results, and when to use it. It even suggests follow-up actions. It is complete enough for correct invocation and result handling.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains 'from_role' (filters by author), 'pin_key' (narrows to one pin's round), and 'fields' (list of names or 'headers' for a smaller response). It implies 'to_role' via 'addressed to a role (defaults to yours)' but does not name it directly. It omits any description of the 'limit' parameter, which is a minor gap given its obvious meaning.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List proposals (kind='proc') addressed to a role' and clearly states the purpose is to retrieve items needing that role's decision. It differentiates from sibling tools like open_obligations by noting it is analogous but distinct, and explicitly lists exclusions (nudges, opened-for-reading, superseded, etc.) that set it apart from other listing tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to check both this and open_obligations, explains what is not included (superseded, already voted, etc.), and gives conditional advice on handling entries with missing subjects (use acknowledge with decision='void'). It also explains when to use the 'fields' parameter for large listings, which is a direct usage instruction.

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