list_votes

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, required permissions, or return format. The schema hints at pagination via page and limit, but the description adds no context beyond the name.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is extremely sparse for a tool with 12 parameters. It is concise but lacks structure (e.g., bullets or separation of concerns). It does not front-load key information about capabilities or usage.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, multiple filters, and an output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It provides only the basic purpose and leaves the agent to infer filtering, pagination, and output details from the schema. No guidance on common use cases or integration with other tools is given.

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%, as all 12 parameters have descriptions. The tool's description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide examples.

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 '列出立法院表決紀錄。' means 'List legislative voting records,' which clearly states the verb (list) and resource (voting records). It distinguishes from siblings like get_vote and get_vote_meets by indicating a list operation, though it does not elaborate on scope or specific type of votes.

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. The description does not mention when to use it, when not to, or any alternatives. Since sibling tools like get_vote and get_vote_meets exist, explicit guidance would be valuable but is absent.

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