build_proposal_review

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

The tool is described as read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, but no annotations exist. The description does not disclose error handling, side effects, or behavior for invalid inputs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise at 13 words, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it is too brief to fully inform usage, balancing conciseness with completeness poorly.

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 tool has 4 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error cases, and parameter relationships.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the four parameters (project_dir, format, updates, proposal_id). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 the tool builds a read-only author review packet for proposals, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like build_proposal_readiness or build_proposal_template, which could lead to confusion.

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, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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