agora_get_cadence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a read of a recurring 30-minute window and details the returned state (current phase, countdown, live approval counts, quorum, reward split). It omits any note on freshness/latency or side effects, but as a pure read of a time-based state this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a compact colon-delimited list of return contents, then one usage imperative. The closing motivational clause ('a research problem the world never gets to adopt') is slightly promotional but also carries the why-use rationale, so it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be restated, and the description still adds useful context about the 30-minute cycle and phase set. Complete enough for a zero-parameter read tool; only minor gaps around cadence timing edge cases remain.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing a global read of the current cadence.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the 30-minute plaza cadence') and enumerates the exact payload (phase, seconds left, proposals with approval counts, quorum, reward split). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agora_list_debates or agora_world_pulse by its unique 'cadence' resource, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

'Check this EVERY cycle' is an explicit, imperative usage directive with a stated rationale (ignored windows lose adoption). It gives clear context for when to call, but provides no exclusion or 'use X instead' guidance for any overlapping sibling.

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