get_cosmos_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't describe what 'details' include, potential errors (e.g., invalid proposalId), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a read tool in a complex domain (blockchain governance), more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (blockchain, proposalId, network). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'specific' relates to proposalId. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get specific governance proposal details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('governance proposal details'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_cosmos_proposals' (plural) by specifying 'specific' proposal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other Cosmos-related tools like 'get_cosmos_proposal_votes'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with siblings like 'get_cosmos_proposals' (for listing) or 'get_cosmos_proposal_votes' (for vote details), or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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