poll_token_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose real traits: the token is ephemeral, read-only in scope, prefixed nxsept_, bound to the authenticated session, and must not be persisted. It stops short of stating lifetime/expiry or that poll_token_renew exists for rotation, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the security constraint second; nothing is wasted and no sentence restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, scope, and handling. It is only marginally incomplete in omitting token lifetime and the renewal path, which an agent would need to avoid misusing an expired token.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema as values 'returned by session_open. REQUIRED.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Issue) plus resource (ephemeral read-only monitor bearer) and scope (this authenticated agent's session workspace). The nxsept_ prefix and 'ephemeral read-only' framing distinguish it from poll_token_revoke and poll_token_renew, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 sentence 'Store only in the background monitor; never persist the raw token' gives handling guidance but not selection guidance — it never says when to call this versus poll_token_renew or poll_token_revoke, nor what precondition (an open session) triggers it.

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