gitlab_poll_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains polling behavior, interval, timeout, and return value. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but provides key behavioral traits adequately.

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 (7 lines) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted 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?

The description covers input parameters and return value. It lacks explicit mention of authentication or prerequisites, and does not clarify if project_path is always needed (it's optional in schema). Given the presence of an output schema, the return description is sufficient, but minor contextual gaps remain.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains each parameter (job_id, project_path, interval_seconds, timeout_minutes) with types, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'group/project' for project_path), significantly augmenting the raw 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 clearly states the verb 'Poll' and the resource 'GitLab CI job', and specifies the outcome 'until it reaches a terminal state'. This distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_job which just fetches status once.

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 polling mechanism with interval and timeout, implying when to use it (when waiting for completion). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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