Poll a background run

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: finished runs replay the original result verbatim, abandoned runs are reported as such, and a timed-out wait is not an error. This fully informs the agent of runtime behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose, second explains result semantics, third gives parameter usage patterns. No redundancy, front-loaded with the primary action. Extremely efficient.

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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: three operational modes, parameter interactions, special cases (abandoned, timed-out wait), and the exact replay behavior. An agent has everything needed to use the tool correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description enhances this by explaining how parameters interact (omitting runId triggers list mode, waitMs is ignored in list mode) and provides defaults (8192 bytes for tail, 20 limit). This integration-level meaning adds value beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('background run') and explicitly lists the types of runs (grok, review, websearch). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'check', 'stop', and the run-initiating tools by making the polling/list usage obvious.

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 when to use each parameter combination (runId for inspection, waitMs for blocking, omit runId for listing). While it gives clear context and distinguishes the three modes, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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