get_member_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies this is a read operation ('Poll') but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, rate-limited, or what the polling interval/retry logic might be. It mentions the dependency on 'add_members' but lacks details on error handling or response format.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a polling tool: it doesn't explain what the result contains (e.g., success/failure status, member details), polling behavior, or error cases. It covers basic usage but lacks operational context needed for robust agent invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: 'group_id' is 'The ID of the group' and 'results_id' is 'The GUID returned from add_members', clarifying their sources and roles beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., UUID for results_id).

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 states the specific action ('Poll the result') and resource ('of an add_members request'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_members' (which initiates the request) and 'get_group' (which retrieves group info). It precisely identifies its role in the workflow.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: after 'add_members' has been called, using the 'GUID returned from add_members'. This provides clear prerequisites and distinguishes it from alternatives like checking group membership via 'get_group' or 'list_groups'.

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