get_pollRead a Whichli poll's question and its options (photo URLs, captions, shop links) without vote counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poll | Yes | Poll id (e.g. 'k7m2q9xr4t') or a whichli.com/p/... URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish safety; the description adds value by specifying what is included (question, options with photo URLs, captions, shop links) and what is excluded (vote counts). It does not disclose details like formatting or whether options are returned in order, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.
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 is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detail on contents and exclusions. Every element adds value, and there is no redundancy.
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 simple read tool with one parameter, complete schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned (question, options, URLs, captions, shop links) and what is not (vote counts). It could mention return format, but that's less critical given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.
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 schema already documents the 'poll' parameter with an example ID and URL format, covering 100% of the parameter description. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 reads a poll's question and options (photo URLs, captions, shop links) but excludes vote counts, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_poll_results' that likely returns votes. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Whichli poll') with precise scope, differentiating it clearly from 'create_photo_poll' as well.
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 when to use this tool: when you need poll content without votes, and explicitly excludes vote counts, which steers users toward get_poll_results for vote data. It doesn't explicitly name get_poll_results as an alternative, but the exclusion of vote counts is a clear contextual hint differentiating it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: creating a poll, reading poll metadata, and reading vote results. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_photo_poll, get_poll, get_poll_results. Predictable and clearly derived from actions.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused photo poll server. Each tool covers a fundamental step in the poll lifecycle without unnecessary bloat.
The core create-read-results flow is covered, but tools for updating or deleting polls are missing. The adminUrl hints at management capabilities that aren't exposed, leaving notable gaps.