ipoll_agents

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the result content (domains, trust scores, capabilities) but omits behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or whether results are paginated.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with action and scope. Every word serves the purpose; no fluff.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description is mostly complete for a list tool. However, lacks details on result format or pagination behavior, which could be relevant for agents.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description needs no parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate; description adds no param info but also requires none.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'List all registered agents' with scope '.aint domains' and listed attributes 'trust scores, and capabilities.' It effectively distinguishes from siblings like ipoll_pull (deletion/retrieval?) and ipoll_send (sending).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is implied by sibling tool names (e.g., ipoll_pull likely for pulling specific data, ipoll_send for sending), but no explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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