vote_on_dispute

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that staking is required and that there is a 24-hour lock, but omits details like idempotency, permission requirements, or the effect of voting (e.g., resolution impact).

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 extremely concise with only three sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, prerequisite, and constraint. No fluff or redundancy.

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 and moderate complexity, the description covers key behavioral aspects (prerequisite and lock) but misses details like how voting affects dispute resolution or how to check past votes. Still, it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters 'market' and 'outcome' beyond their schema descriptions, which are already clear.

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 votes during a dispute, with a specific verb 'vote' and resource 'dispute'. It distinguishes itself from sibling vote tools (e.g., vote_reef_comment) by focusing on disputes. The name alone is descriptive.

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 provides a clear precondition ('Requires resolver_stake first') and a constraint ('24h lock'), guiding when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like propose_outcome or dispute_outcome.

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