get_proposal_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral aspects itself. It only states 'Get details', giving no information about network requirements, response format, potential errors, or whether the operation is read-only. The absence of behavioral context is a significant gap for an on-chain data lookup.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It earns merit for being short but lacks the structure needed to convey additional context.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what 'details' are returned. The sibling list includes multiple proposal-related tools, creating ambiguity about scope. The description does not compensate for these missing details, leaving the agent without enough context to expect return data or limitations.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already explains network, proposalId, and governorAddress adequately.

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 'Get details of a governance proposal' clearly identifies a read operation on a governance proposal resource. However, it does not specify what 'details' include or how this differs from related tools like get_proposal_proposer or get_governance_params, limiting distinction among siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_proposal_proposer or check_vote_eligibility. There is no mention of prerequisites like needing a governor address and proposal ID, or any exclusion criteria.

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