pm_vote

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. Stating 'Vote' implies mutation but provides no details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or state changes. Insufficient for a write operation.

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 short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is concise but not necessarily effective.

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 complexity (voting on private markets) and lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to provide a complete picture for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter info. Neither 'market' (string) nor 'outcome' (number) are explained. The agent cannot infer what values to provide.

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 'Vote on private market outcome' clearly identifies the action (vote) and the resource (private market outcome). It distinguishes from most sibling tools like pm_create_market and pm_finalize, but does not differentiate from vote_on_dispute, which is also a voting action.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vote_on_dispute) or prerequisites (e.g., must have shares, market must be open for voting). The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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