generate_academic_praproposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (.odt), template usage, and accepted inputs, but it does not mention side effects such as file overwriting, return behavior, or requirements like template availability.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary output is stated first, followed by input structure, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the structure of the metadata object, the behavior of custom_template_filename, and any details about how the generated file is returned or stored, leaving an agent unable to reliably construct valid arguments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by enumerating the content sections (latar_belakang, landasan_kepustakaan, rumusan_masalah, metode, daftar_pustaka), but it leaves the metadata object entirely unspecified and does not clarify output_filename or custom_template_filename semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Membuat'), a concrete resource ('berkas Dokumen Pra-Proposal Skripsi (.odt)'), and the official template basis ('SA2-01A'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling generate_academic_proposal by specifying the pre-proposal document type.

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 the tool is for generating a pra-proposal document from provided metadata and content sections, which contrasts with topic-based siblings like generate_praproposal_from_topic. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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