dispute_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a '5 USDB bond' implying a cost, but does not explain what happens to the bond, the dispute process, or any side effects such as whether the dispute triggers a voting period.

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 very concise with a single sentence. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 tool's nature (disputing outcomes with a bond) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the effect of the dispute, how the bond is handled, or what constitutes an 'alternative outcome', leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Dispute' and object 'proposed outcome', clearly identifying the action and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings like 'propose_outcome' and 'veto_outcome' by mentioning the '5 USDB bond', adding specific context that differentiates it.

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 versus alternatives such as 'veto_outcome' or 'propose_outcome'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or suitable contexts for disputing an outcome.

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