cache_get_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the tool fetches a single proposal and includes the audit trail, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limits. Adequate but minimal.

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 12-word sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It covers the primary action and result (audit trail). Minor gap: no mention of return format or potential errors, but adequate for most agents.

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 single parameter proposal_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'including its audit trail' which is about the tool's output, not the parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool fetches a single cache proposal by id, and specifies it includes the audit trail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cache_list (which lists proposals) or cache_list_pending_proposals (pending only).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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