Cast Governance Vote

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

No meaningful annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that votes are weighted, but it does not mention that casting a vote is a state-changing action, whether it can be modified or withdrawn, or what prerequisites (active session, eligibility, stake) apply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place by conveying the action, object, and context in seven words.

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 three-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the core invocation information is present. The main gap is behavioral context around voting rules and side effects, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents motion_id, vote, and statement fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cast') and resource ('a weighted vote in a governance session'), and the vote action is clearly distinct from sibling tools like civitae_post, civitae_stake, or civitae_register. It immediately tells the agent what operation this tool performs.

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 phrase 'in a governance session' provides clear context for when to use the tool, and the vote action separates it from session/meeting management tools. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating conditions such as requiring an active session, so it does not reach 5.

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