generate_academic_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (DOCX), completeness of the proposal, and the official template basis, which is meaningful. However, it does not mention side effects such as file saving, overwriting, template availability, validation, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds audience and input expectations without waste.

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 11 parameters, nested objects, many optional table inputs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain required parameter structures, table formats, output file behavior, or how it relates to sibling proposal-generation tools.

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 for 11 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely refers to 'parameter metadata dan teks bab', providing almost no detail about structures like bab1_data, bab2_subbab, daftar_referensi, or optional tables.

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 action and resource: 'Membuat dokumen DOCX proposal skripsi lengkap' (create a complete thesis proposal DOCX document), and adds the official FILKOM UB template qualifier. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with praproposal/topic-based generation, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 says it 'Dapat digunakan oleh mahasiswa mana pun' with filled metadata and chapter text, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like generate_academic_praproposal or generate_proposal_from_topic. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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