saihm_governance_vote

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses the mutable nature (cast a vote) and weight derivation, but lacks detail on idempotency, consequences of re-voting, or any side effects beyond the vote.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence carries essential information, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple voting tool with two clearly described parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, weight derivation, and parameter origins, leaving no significant gaps.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by linking proposalId to saihm_governance_propose and clarifying approve's boolean meaning, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 action (Cast a vote), the resource (open gSAIHM-governance proposal), and adds unique context about vote weight derivation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like saihm_governance_propose by focusing on voting rather than proposal creation.

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 usage on open proposals and explains the critical weight constraint (balance at snapshotEpoch). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is sufficient given the sibling set.

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