governance_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool performs two RPC reads and is a live decode, indicating no side effects. It does not detail authentication or rate limits, but the operational scope is clear.

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 informative paragraph, front-loaded with key purpose and includes many details without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured, but is efficient overall.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description exhaustively lists all returned components, explains thresholds, and mentions the canonical source. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's output and complexity.

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%, but the description does not explain the 'network' parameter beyond its enum values. It fails to add context like which network each option corresponds to or that it selects the query target.

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 decodes the governance state from the genesis hook, listing specific components (seats, members, votes, tally, constants). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_hook_state by specifying it is a 'FULL live decode' specifically for governance.

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 use for obtaining governance state but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like get_hook_state for raw state.

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