ipoll_send

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 mentions the return type ('Delivery confirmation with message ID') and explains poll types, but it does not explicitly state side effects, failure modes, or whether the operation is safe/read-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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args and Returns section. It is concise without extra fluff, though the bulleted list could be slightly more compact.

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 all parameters, explains the protocol context, and includes return behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate completeness for a messaging tool with 5 parameters.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: to_agent (with examples), content, from_agent (default), poll_type (enumeration of values), and metadata (optional extra data). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with 'Send a message to an AI agent via I-Poll,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ipoll_agents, ipoll_pull, etc., which handle other operations.

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 explains the I-Poll protocol and provides examples for to_agent and meaning of poll_type. It is clear when to use this tool (to send messages), though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling names.

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