vote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether voting is reversible, requires authentication (implied by 'login' sibling), has rate limits, or affects user scores (related to 'dropscore').

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff or repetition. It's appropriately front-loaded and sized for a simple tool.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on integration with siblings (e.g., how 'battle_id' is obtained) and behavioral implications, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'choice' relates to agent responses, which is already clear from the schema's enum and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('vote') and the resource ('on a battle'), with precise scope ('choose which agent response was better'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_battle' or 'recent_battles' by focusing on evaluation rather than creation or listing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for evaluating battles, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a battle ID from 'recent_battles' or 'start_battle'), exclusions, or contextual triggers.

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