poll_turn_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking resolution and getting results, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a polling operation (implying potential delays or retries), what 'resolved' means (e.g., success/failure states), or the response format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context if needed. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 complexity (a polling tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in a larger workflow (e.g., turn-based systems), what results to expect, or error conditions. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names (worldId, turnNumber, sessionId)—it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their formats, or how they relate to checking turn results. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Check if turn has resolved and get results' states the purpose with a verb ('Check') and resource ('turn'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'turn' refers to in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_turn_status' or 'resolve_turn'. It's functional but lacks specificity about the domain (e.g., game turns, workflow turns).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after submitting turn actions), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_turn_status' or 'poll_events'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose correctly among siblings.

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