okf_list_proposals

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering core safety traits. The description adds the term 'compact metadata' which hints at a filtered response, but does not detail return format, ordering, or potential pagination limits. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence (6 words) that is well front-loaded and avoids verbosity. It could benefit from slightly more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 list tool with only two optional parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'compact metadata' means, the structure of the response, or whether results are ordered or limited. Given the lack of output schema and absence of such details, completeness is low.

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 100% (both 'bundle' and 'status' have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; the phrase 'compact metadata' does not elaborate on parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List compact metadata for stored authoring proposals' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (proposals) with a qualifier on the output style. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'okf_get_proposal', which likely provides full details, leaving some ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_bundles or search tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, forcing the agent to rely solely on the tool name and schema.

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