cast_vote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions expertise weighting but does not clarify if multiple votes per agent are allowed, if votes can be changed, or if there are side effects. The description partially covers behavioral traits but leaves gaps.

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 well-structured with a concise introductory line followed by a clear bulleted parameter list. It is mostly concise, though some phrasing could be tightened. Overall efficient and easy to scan.

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 could explain return values or confirmation details. It lacks context on limitations (e.g., one vote per decision) and does not describe what happens after voting. It covers parameter semantics well but omits some contextual information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: 'decision_id', 'agent_id', 'recommendation' with examples, 'reasoning' length, 'confidence' range, 'perspective' angles, and 'expertise_area' purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'Cast a vote on an open decision.' It explains the components of a vote (recommendation, reasoning, confidence) and notes that votes are weighted by expertise. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'close_decision' and 'create_decision'.

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 the tool is for voting on open decisions but does not explicitly state when to use it, prerequisites (e.g., decision must be open), or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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