Queue Progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals safe read-only behavior via 'GET' and 'Poll', and lists the return payload fields. However, it does not disclose details like whether repeated polling has rate-limit implications, what the 'state' field values look like, or whether calling during idle periods yields an error—partial transparency only.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Poll generation progress') followed by return-value field enumeration and endpoint reference. Every element earns its place with zero filler or 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?

Given the low complexity (one optional boolean param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, return fields, and endpoint. Since there is no output schema, it correctly takes on the job of listing return values. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what 'state' values are), but the tool's simplicity means this is adequate and nearly complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'current image' in the return value creates a useful linkage to the skip_current_image parameter (since skipping serialization affects that return field), but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents. Meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Poll') with a clear resource ('generation progress') and enumerates return values (progress 0-1, ETA, state, current image). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sdnext_status (overall status) and sdnext_interrupt/sdnext_skip (control actions) by targeting the progress query specifically.

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 'Poll' verb implies periodic checking during generation, which suggests the usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives—for example, it never clarifies the difference from sdnext_status or when to prefer one over the other. The usage context is implied but never made explicit.

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