get_governance_params

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 implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but adds no additional context such as the need for a valid governor contract address, network-specific behavior, or what happens if the address is invalid. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what is evident from the name and schema.

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 no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose with examples of the governance parameters returned. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity, the description is adequate but not complete. It lists examples of governance parameters but does not explain the full range of possible return values or the format of the response. There is no output schema, so the description should have provided more detail about what the agent can expect. It also does not mention that the governorAddress must be a valid governance contract address, though that is somewhat implied.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (network and governorAddress), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'voting delay, period, and thresholds' which are examples of the returned data, not parameter details. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the tool's function as retrieving governance parameters such as voting delay, period, and thresholds. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('governance parameters'), making its purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_proposal_details or get_voting_power, which could cause some ambiguity.

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 alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and schema. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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