get_proposition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read operation, and 'canonical metadata and provenance' adds some context, but the description does not disclose behavior such as error handling, whether the UUID must be an exact canonical ID, or any data freshness/versioning considerations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the description is appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter.

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?

Given the simple input (one required UUID), the presence of an output schema, and no nested objects or enums, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly identifies what is returned and the expected identifier.

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 provides only a title for proposition_id with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying that the parameter is a proposition UUID, adding format and semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('canonical metadata and provenance'), and a precise scope ('for one proposition UUID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sources or read_proposition_text, which target different resources or operations.

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 implies the correct usage context: call this tool when you have a single proposition UUID and need its canonical metadata/provenance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular-UUID scope provides clear context.

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