session_poll_user_action

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the key return behavior ('Returns acted:false while waiting') and advises against tight-loop polling. However, it does not describe what a successful completion response looks like, whether the call blocks or returns immediately, or any error or timeout behavior, leaving some important behavioral context unspecified.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then delivers return behavior and polling guidance in an efficient, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place.

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, zero-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it checks, what acted:false means, and how often to call it. It does not specify the full return shape or how to retrieve the actual action results, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 states a specific action—check whether the human has completed what session_ask_user requested—and clearly identifies the resource being polled. It distinguishes itself from the related ask_user workflow by focusing on the poll-for-completion role, making its purpose immediately understandable.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: after session_ask_user has been called, to check human completion. It also provides explicit cadence guidance ('a few seconds apart rather than in a tight loop'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using session_get_user_actions to retrieve the actual action details.

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