inspect_proposal_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'memeriksa' (inspect) and 'mengembalikan informasi' (returns information), but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the file or mention any prerequisites or side effects. The description is adequate for a simple inspection but lacks explicit behavioral disclosures.

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 two sentences, front-loading the verb and resource, and lists the return values. It is concise and well-structured with no unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It does not include error handling or edge cases, but those are not critical for this type of inspection tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 has one parameter 'filename' with no description and 0% coverage. The description mentions 'dokumen proposal skripsi (.docx) di dalam workspace', which gives context that the filename refers to a .docx file in the workspace, adding some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the parameter is the file path or name, nor does it explain the default value.

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 uses a specific verb 'memeriksa' (inspect) and a clear resource 'struktur dokumen proposal skripsi (.docx)', and it explicitly lists the information returned (jumlah paragraf, tabel, seksi, perkiraan kata, daftar heading). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like export_proposal_as_markdown or generate_rubric_checklist_report, which have different purposes.

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. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage based on the name and function alone.

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