chaprola_baa_text

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that the tool retrieves text and version and instructs presenting it for review, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or if any side effects occur. The brevity leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 action and purpose. It contains no redundant words and earns its place.

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, zero-parameter retrieval with no output schema, the description covers the core function and the workflow (review before signing). It could be more complete by explicitly saying the tool does not sign and that signing is handled by a sibling, but the essential information is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description aligns with the schema.

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 specifies the exact function: retrieving the current BAA text and version. It also distinguishes from siblings like sign_baa by framing this as the pre-signing review step, making the resource and purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Present to human for review before signing' provides clear context for when to use this tool—prior to executing a signature. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the guidance is sufficient to differentiate it from sign_baa and baa_status.

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