solver_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully exposes the HTTP method GET and the read-only nature of listing/inspecting proposals. It does not disclose auth requirements, default status behavior, or what happens when proposal_id is combined with filters.

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 one front-loaded sentence that puts the core operation first and adds the endpoint in parentheses. Every clause earns its place by contributing either an operation mode or routing information, with no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to provide more operational context, but it omits the meanings of arm_id and status, the default list behavior, pagination, and the shape of a list response. It is sufficient for the proposal_id detail mode but incomplete for the full tool.

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 low at 33%: only proposal_id has a schema description. The description adds no meaning for arm_id or status, and the word 'pending' only vaguely hints at a default status without mapping to the enum. It therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List pending repair proposals') and explicitly adds the inspect-one mode when proposal_id is set, including the REST path. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings like solver_review_proposal.

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 conditional 'or inspect one when proposal_id is set' provides clear guidance for choosing between this tool's two modes. However, it does not mention when to use this tool instead of solver_review_proposal or other proposal-related siblings, so external usage guidance is left implied rather than explicit.

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