list_proposals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is local, read-only, makes no network call, and doesn't alter the profile. This transparently conveys the non-destructive nature. It doesn't mention error behavior or sorting, but for a read-only list tool this coverage is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the read-only note and the parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains purpose, behavior, and the parameter. No additional information is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Despite schema coverage of 0%, the description directly explains the only parameter: 'Set include_applied=true to also show proposals that have already been sent.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Include Applied' title, enabling correct usage without needing to inspect the schema.

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 specific action (list) and resource (saved edit proposals) along with what's included (their diffs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like propose_edit, apply_proposal, and discard_proposal by being the read-only listing operation, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: 'Local read only — no network call and no profile change' indicates it's for inspecting proposals without side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks direct exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its usage.

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