ipoll_pull

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of mark_read ('Mark messages as read after pulling') and specifies return fields (sender, content, type, timestamp), adding behavioral context beyond a simple read.

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 efficient with one summary line followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose and avoiding any redundant or vague language.

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 purpose, parameters, and return format. It does not explicitly mention that agent_id has a default value (present in schema), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: 'agent_id: Your agent ID to check inbox for' and 'mark_read: Mark messages as read after pulling,' adding meaning beyond bare schema titles and defaults.

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 'Pull messages from your I-Poll inbox,' clearly specifying the verb (pull), resource (messages), and scope (inbox). This distinguishes it from siblings like ipoll_send (send) and ipoll_status (status).

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 usage for checking inbox messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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