queue_proposal

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only reveals that the tool performs a queue operation requiring a Timelock. It does not disclose that this broadcasts a signed on-chain transaction with gas costs, whether the action is reversible, what state the proposal transitions to, or what the response contains — a significant gap for a state-changing governance tool. The Timelock constraint is the only meaningful behavioral addition.

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?

An eight-word sentence front-loads the action verb and compresses a useful dependency note into a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy against the schema or title.

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?

For a 7-parameter, state-changing on-chain transaction with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the action and the Timelock precondition. The agent is left uninformed about return values, failure modes (e.g., invoking it before the proposal succeeds), and the full queue→timelock→execute lifecycle; however, the fully documented schema prevents this from being a complete failure.

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%, with each of the 7 parameters receiving a meaningful description (e.g., 'ETH values for each call (in wei)', 'Keccak256 hash of proposal description'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema about parameters and notably omits cross-parameter requirements, such as the target/value/calldata arrays needing to align and match the original proposal's hashed description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Queue') tied to a precise governance stage, explicitly scoping to 'a successful proposal' destined 'for execution.' This clearly differentiates it from governance siblings like execute_proposal, cancel_proposal, and cast_vote, which represent different lifecycle stages.

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 phrase 'successful proposal' communicates the precondition that the proposal must have passed voting, and '(requires Timelock)' gives a concrete constraint on when the tool is applicable. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., that execute_proposal should be used after the Timelock delay), so the guidance is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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