nexus_exec_poll

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

There is a direct annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=true while the description includes 'kill' which is a destructive action. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about behavioral safety. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the actions. Every word is necessary, and it is immediately scannable.

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 no output schema, the description offers no information about return values, side effects of 'kill', or the necessity of jobId per action. The annotation contradiction also undermines completeness, and the missing guidance on parameter usage leaves the agent under-informed.

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?

The schema coverage is only 50% (jobId has no description), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not clarify that jobId is likely required for 'poll' and 'kill' but not for 'list', nor does it explain the meaning of jobId. The enums are simply restated from 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 uses clear verbs ('Poll, list, or kill') against a defined resource ('background exec jobs'), making the tool's scope unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nexus_exec by focusing on managing existing background jobs rather than starting them.

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 implies usage context (managing background exec jobs), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexus_exec. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the differentiation from the tool name and sibling list.

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