build_proposal_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds a template but does not explain side effects (e.g., file overwrite, directory requirements) or the nature of the template content (e.g., format, structure). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence of 12 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. While it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points), it is not verbose and every word adds meaning.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the template's output format, evidence requirements, or how the parameters influence the result, leaving significant gaps for correct use.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (file, chapter, project_dir). The agent receives no help in understanding what each parameter provides or how to use them 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 specifies the verb 'Build' and the resource 'empty post-write proposal template with chapter context and evidence requirements', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that build chapter contexts or proposal readiness. However, 'post-write' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 vs. alternatives like build_chapter_context or build_proposal_readiness. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid using it.

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