koios_proposal_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a list' with no mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, response format, rate limits, or required permissions. While the read-only nature is implied, the description lacks meaningful behavioral context beyond the obvious action.

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, clean sentence of 8 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words or redundant phrases. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description only says it lists proposals, but does not explain the response structure, pagination semantics, or any nuances like whether all proposals are returned in a single call or requires multiple requests. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about behavior and return values.

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%, with each parameter (limit, order, offset, select) described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or examples, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate or enhance meaning beyond 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 'Get a list of all governance proposals' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('list of all governance proposals'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like koios_voter_proposal_list (voter-specific) and koios_proposal_votes (votes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'all governance proposals' implies this is the general list endpoint, contrasting with more specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions like voter-specific proposals or voting summaries. It gives clear context but no direct comparative guidance.

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