dao_vote

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

It discloses that the tool 'Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction,' which is critical behavioral information. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; however, it doesn't discuss reversibility, permissions, or return values.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: usage, behavioral note with required params, optional params and cross-reference. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core functionality, essential parameters, and related tools. Missing minor details like error handling, but overall sufficient.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying the vote options (yes, no, abstain, no_with_veto) and explaining optional params like exec_try. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 states the action 'cast a vote' and the resource 'active DAO proposal' directly. It also references sibling tools dao_get_proposal and dao_exec, distinguishing it clearly.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to cast a vote' and guides to see related tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but context is clear.

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