generate_praproposal_from_topic

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output format and section composition but is silent on side effects (whether a file is written to the workspace and whether existing files are overwritten), authentication needs, whether paper-search must be available as a dependency, and failure modes.

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 compact sentences that front-load the main purpose and pack the key constraints (format, form code, word limits) efficiently. No wasted words, though the second sentence's section list could arguably have been trimmed.

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, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (file path? confirmation?), where the file is saved, or the roles of several parameters, leaving an agent unable to assemble a correct call for all inputs.

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 explains topic, CSV data, and retrieved papers, but leaves variabel_x, variabel_y, student_metadata, latar_belakang_notes, metode_penelitian_notes, and custom_template_filename entirely unexplained, relying only on their self-evident names.

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 (generate), resource (thesis pre-proposal .odt SA2-01A document), and the sources (topic, CSV literature, MCP paper-search). It lists the composed sections with explicit word limits (Background ≤500, Literature ≤250, Method ≤250). However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the near-twin sibling generate_academic_praproposal, which appears to produce the same kind of document.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never contrasts with siblings like generate_proposal_from_topic or generate_academic_praproposal, leaving an agent to guess which one to pick. The mention of sources (CSV, paper-search) implies context but provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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