advisor_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the three possible outcome types (running with elapsed time, result, failed), which is useful for an agent to interpret the response. However, it does not cover edge cases like invalid task_id or timeout behavior, but overall it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence with an emoji list, front-loading the action and clearly enumerating states. Every element adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. The description adequately conveys the purpose and expected outcome types, making it complete enough for basic usage. It could mention polling behavior (e.g., whether it is non-blocking), but the context is sufficient for a straightforward status query.

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%, and the description does not explicitly describe the task_id parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory and its usage is implied by the description ('query status'), but the description does not add any specific details about format, expected values, or how to obtain it. This is a minor gap.

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's purpose: querying the status of a consultation task. It lists the possible statuses (running with elapsed time, result, failed), and the verb '查询' is specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like advisor_create_task (creation) and advisor_list_tasks (listing).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after creating a task or how it differs from advisor_list_tasks. The name 'poll' implies usage, but explicit exclusions or alternatives are absent.

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