vote_trace

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

Adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: feedback_tag conditional requirement for downvotes, specific enum values (outdated/wrong/security_concern/spam), and cross-context vote weighting logic. Annotations only indicate non-readOnly; description carries the full behavioral burden effectively.

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?

Well-structured with clear separation between purpose statement and Args documentation. Slight verbosity acceptable given comprehensive parameter coverage. Front-loaded intent with detailed parameter reference following.

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?

Given 5 parameters, nested objects, and output schema existence, description is complete. Covers domain context (CommonTrace), business logic (vote weighting), and input constraints without needing to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with types, constraints, examples ({'language': 'python'}), and conditional logic. Exceptional coverage given schema deficiency.

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?

Excellent clarity: 'Vote on a trace in the CommonTrace knowledge base' provides specific verb (vote), resource (trace), and domain (CommonTrace). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like amend_trace (modification), contribute_trace (creation), and get_trace (retrieval).

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?

Provides implicit usage through parameter constraints ('Required for downvotes') but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance vs siblings. No mention of when to prefer voting over amending or contributing trace corrections.

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