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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the componentAttributionAvailable field is false until M2, which is useful context, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, non-blocking, or what happens on invalid runId. The 'Poll' verb implies a safe read, but this is not explicit.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Poll a suite run') and then lists the return details concisely. It is dense but not bloated, earning a 4 for efficiency.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key return fields and even notes the availability caveat for component attribution. However, it omits error handling, retry behavior, or any prerequisites beyond having a runId. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 single parameter runId is fully described in the schema as 'Run id returned by test_suite_run', and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 polls a suite run and enumerates the exact return data: run aggregate, per-test status, step counts, overall summary, and component-step attribution. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like test_suite_run (which starts a run) by focusing on status retrieval.

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 implies usage after a run has been initiated (via runId from test_suite_run) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions. It gives no guidance on polling frequency or when to stop polling.

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