list_governance_votes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination (despite parameters 'page' and 'limit'), result ordering, or whether votes are summarized. The output schema exists but is not referenced to mitigate this gap.

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 very short (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it is overly terse and could include critical details like pagination or the requirement of a proposal ID without becoming verbose.

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 the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about filtering, pagination, and the relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally complete and leaves many practical questions unanswered.

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%. The description only implicitly explains 'proposal_id' (the proposal to get votes for) but does not mention 'page' or 'limit', which are self-evident from their names and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action (List) and the resource (votes for a specific proposal), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_governance_vote' (single vote) and 'list_governance_proposals'. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all votes or just active ones), leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'get_governance_vote' for a single vote or 'list_governance_proposals' for proposals. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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