poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: wait_s blocks up to N seconds, 0 returns immediately and is the default, and since yields only new output. It omits what happens on polling a finished job, whether output is retained or consumed, and any permission/lifetime constraints.

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?

Three short clauses with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The 'since = the offset...' construction is slightly telegraphic, but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns; it implies new output text plus a next offset value ('the previous call printed'), which is enough to drive the polling loop. It could state the return shape more directly, but an agent has what it needs to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema for 'since' and 'wait_s' (both already documented including the 0 default), adding only the operational framing of chaining offsets across calls.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Collect a job started by exec') and ties itself explicitly to the exec sibling, making clear it retrieves output rather than launching or reporting status. An agent can distinguish poll from status and exec from the description alone.

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?

Establishes the prerequisite workflow (must follow exec) and explains the incremental-polling loop via 'since' and the blocking option via 'wait_s'. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance such as whether to prefer status for a one-shot check or when polling is unnecessary.

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