context-poll_operator

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It hints at checking 'current or proposed context' but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (e.g., boolean), or any side effects. No mention of error handling or return value semantics.

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 that communicates the core purpose without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple check operation, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 relatively simple (4 parameters, no output schema), but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what 'poll' means in Blender, what constitutes a 'context', or what the tool will return. Without annotations, this lacks substantial context for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 0% because the description mentions none of the parameters. The schema itself provides titles for each parameter (e.g., 'Operator id, e.g. mesh.subdivide'), but the description adds no further meaning. Since the description must compensate for low coverage and does not, the score is minimal.

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: checking whether a Blender operator polls in a context. It uses a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from tools like `ui-operator_invoke` (which invokes rather than checks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `ui-operator_poll`, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 like `ui-operator_poll` or `ui-operator_invoke`. The description gives no context for when polling should be checked, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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