okf_get_proposal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with these. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes candidate content and a validation result, which is useful behavioral context beyond the safety profile. No contradictions found.

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 states the action and key details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and no filler exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately outlines what the response includes (candidate content and validation result). The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only, idempotent), and nothing critical is missing for correct invocation. It could mention error cases, but that is not required for this simple read operation.

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 fully describes the single parameter (proposalId) with its origin ('Identifier returned when the proposal was created'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter details, but the schema alone is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read'), a resource ('one authoring proposal'), and key content ('candidate content and validation result'). This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like okf_list_proposals and validation tools like okf_validate_concept, making the 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 description implies single-item retrieval via 'one authoring proposal', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool instead of others. The 'one' provides clear context, but exclusions or comparisons are absent, leaving guidance to inference rather than explicit direction.

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