poll_http

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining how presets work via environment variables and emphasizing security. It does not cover all behavioral traits like response format or rate limiting, but the safety profile is well-covered by annotations.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, usage context, parameter distinction, and a critical security warning. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (5 optional parameters with security implications) and no output schema, the description covers the key points: when to use each parameter, authentication method, and a security warning. It omits details about response handling or error cases, but the openWorldHint annotation implies variability; overall sufficient for agent selection.

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 adds semantic value by reinforcing the security distinction between 'preset' and 'url', and by stating that no presets are configured. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool fetches JSON from an HTTP endpoint, specifies its usage by render_live_chart for polling, and distinguishes it from siblings which are all rendering or file-saving tools. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'JSON from HTTP endpoint' are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use 'preset' (authenticated APIs) versus 'url' (public APIs), with a strong warning against passing API keys in headers. It also notes that no presets are configured, setting clear expectations. This directly helps the agent choose the correct parameter and avoid misuse.

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