saihm_governance_vote

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It discloses that vote weight depends on gSAIHM balance at a snapshot epoch, a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. It does not contradict any annotations.

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, 21 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

For a simple voting tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context (open proposal), and a critical behavioral detail. No gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for proposalId and approve. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema handles the details.

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 states 'Cast a vote on an open gSAIHM-governance proposal,' clearly specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'saihm_governance_propose' by focusing on voting rather than proposing, and provides context about vote weight derivation.

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 mentions vote weight derivation, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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