list_proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description has a lighter burden. It adds meaningful context about the source and nature of proposals. No contradiction with 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?

One dense sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the explanatory clause adds necessary context about the relationship to mutate and apply_proposal without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose and sibling relationships, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, the optional customer_id parameter is entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for correct invocation, and the concept of 'open' is only implicitly defined by sibling tools.

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 single customer_id parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent receives zero information about what this parameter does, whether it is needed, or how it affects results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list open proposals. Explains what these proposals are (diffs from the mutate tool's propose-only findings) and how they relate to apply_proposal and mutate, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling 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?

Clearly implies when to use this tool: to retrieve executable proposals instead of re-deriving mutate calls manually. It references apply_proposal as the follow-up action, giving workflow context, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it.

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