List Change Proposals

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true and idempotent=true. Description adds 'Effect: read', 'Human approval: not required', and detailed failure scenarios (login_required, project_not_selected, permission_denied, stale_version, projection_pending) with prescribed actions.

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?

Description is structured and contains valuable information, but it is somewhat verbose with multiple sections. Could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 optional param, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, effects, failure modes, and follow-up actions completely.

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 covers the single parameter with description. Tool description adds context: optional with default from select_project, and rejection behavior if omitted without a selected project. This goes beyond schema alone.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'durable proposals awaiting human review in the selected Project'. It provides specific scope but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_proposal_review' beyond generic 'narrower tool' guidance.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections with specific conditions: narrower tool, unresolved project scope, declined action. Also states prerequisites (authenticated API authority, selected Project).

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