list_pending_proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the resource types and the approval filter, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or how proposals are represented. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the action ('List proposals'), adds scoping in parentheses, and includes the approval filter—no wasted words.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter list tool with annotations and an output schema. The description explains what the tool returns (proposals pending approval, specifically ManifestWorks and cluster actions), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on the returned data rather than 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 clearly says 'List proposals' and specifies the two kinds (ManifestWorks and cluster actions) plus the filter 'waiting for human approval.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_manifestworks (which lists all manifestworks) and list_pending_csrs (which lists pending certificate requests).

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 implies a clear use case: retrieve proposals that need human approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'waiting for human approval' qualifier provides solid contextual guidance for when to use this tool instead of other list tools.

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