list_proposals

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It discloses login requirement and ordering, but does not explain the required source parameter, pagination, or that it's read-only (implied by 'lists'). The 'mine' clarification is helpful but ambiguous without a corresponding parameter.

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?

Three short sentences, each adds value, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a list tool, it provides enough to get started: what, order, filter, auth. But it lacks guidance on choosing between file/ERD/workspace source and the meaning of 'mine' in the context of the schema. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would help.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (source has a description, status does not). The description adds 'mine' semantics but doesn't explain the source choices or status values, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states it lists the proposal queue, specifies ordering and scope (word/domain, newest first, mine), and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_relationships and list_erds.

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?

Provides context that this is the workspace-standard queue and filterable by status, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it's not a 5.

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