get_change_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Read', implying a non-destructive operation, but does not disclose behavior such as error handling, authorization requirements, or whether it returns partial data. The mention of 'impact estimate, approval receipt, and validation status' gives a hint of return fields, but no details on 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the primary action ('Read one proposal') and then lists associated data types. It is efficient with no redundancy, though the listed items could be more precise or structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what is returned, but it only vaguely hints at 'impact estimate, approval receipt, and validation status' without detailing the response structure. It also lacks usage context, prerequisites, or behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's functionality.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 'proposal_id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (UUID format and pattern). The description does not explain the parameter's purpose, format, or any constraints, so the agent gains no additional understanding from the description.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'proposal', indicating a read operation. It mentions specific aspects (impact estimate, approval receipt, validation status) that hint at the content, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_change_proposal or apply_change_proposal, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that this is for reading a proposal, but without explicit routing to sibling tools like validate_change_proposal or create_change_proposal.

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