wisdom_get_fragment_votes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain what a trust vote is, whether the result is a list or an aggregate, or what data is returned.

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 a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. The key operation and target resource are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple and its parameter is documented, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits important context about the response shape or behavior. It would be more useful if it clarified what 'trust votes' means or what the caller receives.

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 already documents the only parameter as a Fragment UUID with full coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema does the necessary work.

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 identifies the operation ('Get') and the resource ('trust votes for a fragment'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wisdom_vote_on_fragment or wisdom_calculate_trust, but the retrieval intent is clear enough from the name and description.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve trust votes for a fragment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_vote_on_fragment or wisdom_calculate_trust.

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