get_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads content, but does not disclose that it is read-only, or describe return format, permissions, or error behavior. However, the behavior is straightforward and the description is minimally adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences, no superfluous information. Purpose is stated first, followed by a direct usage hint. Every word 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?

Given no output schema, the description fails to explain what 'full content' means (e.g., format, structure). It also omits error handling or prerequisites beyond listing. It is somewhat incomplete for a tool with one parameter and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (parameter name and example).

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 clearly states that the tool reads the full content of a saved proposal by filename. It distinguishes from siblings like list_proposals, save_proposal, delete_proposal by specifying the action of reading content.

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 explicitly advises using list_proposals first to see available filenames, which is helpful prerequisite guidance. It does not cover when not to use or alternative tools, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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