نتایج نظرسنجی

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and externalization are covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context on top: visibility gating of per-voter results, plan-dependent availability of the printable report, and the ended flag. It stops short of stating what happens when no poll exists or whether an error is raised.

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 front-loaded sentence enumerating the return contents, with no filler. It is dense and slightly awkward to parse as one list, but every clause corresponds to real information the caller needs.

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 covers the return shape well, which matters because no output schema exists. However, it omits error cases (non-poll message, missing poll, permission denial) and any pagination or size expectations, so an agent cannot fully predict failure behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both required IDs and their provenance, which is the baseline 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 enumerates the exact return payload (questions, options, counts, percentages, per-voter responses, own votes, ended status, printable report), so the agent knows precisely what resource is retrieved. The verb is implied by the tool name rather than stated, and no sibling tool covers poll retrieval to distinguish from.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter descriptions rather than stated: the schema points the agent to mizito_get_messages or mizito_search_messages for the message_id, which is a useful routing hint, but the description itself says nothing about when to call this vs alternatives or any preconditions.

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