cosmos_get_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' proposals, implying a read operation, but does not describe pagination, default filters, return structure, or any side effects. The lack of annotations and sparse description leaves the agent without key behavioral information.

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, concise sentence, but it largely restates the tool name with minor clarification ('governance'). It is not verbose, but it does not add substantial value beyond the name, making it borderline tautological.

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 absence of an output schema and the minimal description, the agent is left without information about what the response contains, whether the list is paginated, or how the status filter behaves. The schema covers parameters but not return semantics, so the tool is incomplete for a practical agent.

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 both chain and status parameters fully described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics, but because the schema already documents them thoroughly, a baseline score of 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 'Get governance proposals' uses a specific verb+resource pattern and clearly indicates this tool retrieves governance proposals. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cosmos_get_validators or generic governance tools such as get_proposal_details, relying on the tool name to provide context.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of how it relates to other Cosmos tools or governance tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context.

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