Crowd Control — Vote Candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, that it returns 5 candidates, and includes probability and vote tally. It also clarifies that voting requires login, which is a behavioral boundary. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or error behavior, but for a simple read-only listing, this is 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, and every phrase adds value. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (candidates, probability, vote tally) and the channel scoping. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure, but for a low-complexity read operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already covers the channel parameter with an enum and description (100% coverage). The description adds the important semantic that omitting the channel returns both channels, which is not explicit in the schema. This extra clarification elevates the parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 this tool shows the current 5 crowd control vote candidates per channel with their probability and live vote tally. The verb 'shows' is specific to the read-only nature, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'vote_track' by explicitly noting voting requires login.

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?

It provides usage guidance by explaining the read-only nature and that voting requires login, which implies this tool should be used for viewing rather than voting. It also gives the specific instruction 'Omit channel for both' to retrieve both channels, which is actionable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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