comet_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a monitoring tool meant for repeated calls, which suggests it's non-destructive and likely read-only. However, it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, what 'status and progress' includes, or error behaviors. The description adds some context but leaves behavioral traits incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information. It's appropriately sized for a simple polling tool.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe what 'status and progress' returns or any behavioral constraints. For a monitoring tool in an agentic context, more detail about return values or polling behavior would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on usage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to compensate for. The description's mention of 'call repeatedly' adds useful semantic context about invocation patterns.

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: 'Check agent status and progress' provides a specific verb ('check') and resource ('agent status and progress'). It distinguishes from siblings like comet_ask or comet_upload by focusing on monitoring rather than interaction or file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from comet_stop or comet_mode which might also relate to agent state.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Call repeatedly to monitor agentic tasks' indicates this is for polling/monitoring scenarios. It implies usage during ongoing tasks but doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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