cast_vote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that casting a vote submits an on-chain transaction, may incur gas costs, or requires signing with the private key. The security note about privateKey handling exists only in the schema, not the description.

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 concise sentence with zero filler. It effectively communicates the core action in minimal space, matching the conciseness of the high-scoring example.

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?

Despite a well-documented schema, the description is too minimal for a transaction tool involving private keys and governance voting. It does not explain expected outcomes, error conditions, or the on-chain nature of the operation, leaving the agent under-informed for execution.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., network defaults, support enum, privateKey security).

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 'Cast a vote on a governance proposal' uses a specific verb ('cast') and resource ('vote on a governance proposal'). It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling tools like delegate_votes or queue_proposal, which perform different governance functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative governance actions. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., having voting power, proposal eligibility) and does not mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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