vote_scheduleLists DAO proposals queued for a watcher decision, showing each due time and which are due now; filter by status to see pending, dispatched, voted, failed, or expired items.
Shows proposals the watcher has queued for a decision, when each is due, and which are due now. Populated by safe-mpc-watch; empty if the watcher is not running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | pending |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description is free to add real value — and it does, by disclosing the external dependency on safe-mpc-watch and the critical gotcha that an empty result may mean the watcher isn't running rather than no pending items. Return shape is not described, but with a simple list output that is a minor omission.
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, no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the operational caveat. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
Purpose and the empty-result caveat are covered, but for a tool whose only knob is a six-value status enum, leaving that filter entirely unexplained is a real gap. No output schema exists, so a brief note on what a queued entry looks like would also have helped.
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 0% and the single status parameter (pending/dispatched/voted/failed/expired/all) is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'which are due now' hints at the default pending view, but the agent gets no explanation of what each enum value filters, which is the one thing the description needed to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — a read of the watcher's queued vote schedule — plus what each entry contains (due time, due-now flag). It is distinguishable from vote_log by being a forward-looking queue rather than a historical record, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Implied usage is clear (inspect the pending queue before a decision), and the note about safe-mpc-watch gives useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs vote_log or snapshot_pending_vote siblings, and no guidance on when to prefer each.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.