comet_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only, safe polling operation by saying 'check' and 'monitor', but does not mention what happens if the agent is idle or fails, nor any rate limits. Adequate but minimal.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is mostly complete for a simple no-param polling tool: what it does and how to use it. It lacks detail on return format, but given no output schema, the agent can infer a status summary. Slight gap in describing the response nature.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about repeated calls, which is helpful for an empty-schema tool.

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 it checks agent status and progress, with the verb 'check' and resource 'agent status/progress'. It distinguishes from siblings like comet_ask (single query) and comet_stop (stop) by emphasizing repeated calling for monitoring.

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 explicitly says 'Call repeatedly to monitor agentic tasks', giving clear when-to-use context for polling. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined given sibling names.

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