Vote (governance)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as vote weight being derived from balance at snapshotEpoch. Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and description aligns.

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, front-loaded with action and purpose, no redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple voting tool, the description covers core functionality. However, absence of output schema means return values are not described, which could be improved.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds limited value. It clarifies approve as boolean and proposalId as hex from propose, but the schema already defines these clearly.

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 'Cast a vote on an open gSAIHM-governance proposal' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like saihm_governance_propose. It includes key details 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 indicates when to use ('on an open proposal') but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the sibling context provides differentiation.

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