ui-operator_poll

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 states the core behavior (polling check) but does not disclose that it does not execute the operator, whether it is read-only, or how the temporary override context behaves. Still, 'poll' connotes non-destructive availability checking, so it is minimally transparent.

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?

One tightly front-loaded sentence conveys the essential purpose without waste. It earns its place and avoids redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is inadequate. The description lacks return-value expectations, error handling, or any guidance on how parameters interact to create the polling context.

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 description must compensate, but it only hints at 'explicit editor area context.' It adds no meaning for key parameters like idname, object, select, mode, or require_area; the schema titles alone are insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource/behavior ('whether a Blender operator polls') with a qualifier ('in an explicit editor area context'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ui-operator_invoke (executes) and context-poll_operator (likely current context).

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 makes clear this is for checking operator availability under an explicitly constructed editor area context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer when to choose it.

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