vote_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the action is automatic and helps surface quality solutions, but does not disclose potential side effects like permanence, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The behavioral traits are partially covered.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, urging immediacy, and explaining the benefit. No redundant or filler content. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description explains when to call the tool and how to obtain the required parameter (solution ID from search). It does not cover return values or error handling, but these are less critical for a simple vote action. The context is largely sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (id and backend). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing 'from search results' for the id parameter. Baseline 3 applies as schema coverage is high.

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 states the tool's purpose: upvote a Reposit solution after using it successfully. It distinguishes from sibling 'vote_down' by implying positive feedback. The verb 'upvote' aligns with the tool name.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('immediately when a solution worked') and provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling 'vote_down' covers the opposite case. The urgency is emphasized ('don't wait to be asked').

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