roiq_get_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns a complete proposal with payload, implying a read operation, but does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., missing ID), authorization needs, or data completeness. The minimal description leaves key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant information. However, extreme brevity results in missing critical details, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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 tool (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable hint about the return payload ('tomas+receta de montaje'). However, it omits parameter semantics, error scenarios, and any mention of the ID field. The completeness is adequate for a simple get operation but has notable gaps.

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 input schema has one required parameter ('id') with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain that 'id' is the proposal identifier, nor does it describe the expected format or any constraints. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema, which lacks semantic context beyond type 'string'.

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 the tool returns a complete proposal including its payload (shots+assembly recipe). The verb 'returns' and resource 'proposal' are clear. Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'roiq_list_items' or 'roiq_update_proposal', the specific mention of 'complete proposal' implies a single-item retrieval by ID, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing proposals or updating them. The description lacks explicit context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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