arcium_private_vote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the vote is encrypted and hidden until the voting period ends, which is crucial behavioral information. However, it does not mention other aspects like cost or reversibility, but for a simple vote tool this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds key behavioral context. No filler or 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and key behavior. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns upon success or failure, which would improve completeness.

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%, and the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Your encrypted vote' and 'Solana address of the governance proposal'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Cast' and the resource 'encrypted vote in a DAO governance proposal'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arcium_sealed_bid by specifying the context of governance proposals, implying a different use case.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for voting in a DAO governance proposal) but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools like arcium_sealed_bid for auctions.

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