get_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It says 'Get' which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state safety, permission needs, potential errors, or that no data is modified. This lacks the behavioral depth expected without annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and return content.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description adequately explains the return value ('detailed information... including all votes and their comments'), which is sufficient given no output schema exists. It covers what the agent needs to know to invoke and interpret results.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for proposal_id ('The proposal ID'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage details.

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 'Get' and the resource 'proposal', and specifies the scope 'including all votes and their comments'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_proposals, cast_vote, and finalize_proposal.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving detailed proposal data with votes and comments, implying use when such detail is needed. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools like list_proposals.

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