list_open_votes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the poll fields that appear in results, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires auth, whether it paginates, or whether it returns all open votes.

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 compact phrase with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded after the resource. It is terse but not padded; the missing verb is an under-specification issue rather than wasted text.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should tell the agent what a call returns and when to use it. It lists expected fields, which partly compensates for the missing output schema, but it omits the return container (list), pagination/scope, and sibling routing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema aligns with that.

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 names the resource (open one-agent-one-vote polls on v2 roadmap milestones) and enumerates poll fields, but it is a noun phrase that never states the action 'list' or 'return'. The name supplies the verb, so the purpose is inferable, but the description alone does not clearly distinguish this from related read tools like get_roadmap or check_vote_eligibility.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use for related tasks. An agent must infer that this is for discovering open votes before calling build_vote_tx or check_vote_eligibility.

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