sage_gov_vote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that voting requires validator status, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or error conditions (e.g., if the proposal is not active or already voted).

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 only two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a critical constraint concisely.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and a key constraint. However, for a mutation tool, it could be more complete by explaining vote lifecycle or confirmation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the enum and field 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 clearly states 'Vote on an active governance proposal' with a specific verb (vote) and resource (active governance proposal). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sage_gov_propose (proposing) and sage_gov_status (viewing status).

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 mentions 'Only validators can vote,' which is a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. More guidance on context would improve clarity.

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