Short-poll a worker turn for CLI clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains automatic behavior (settled + readOnSettled), default values, and the benefit of avoiding long waits. However, it lacks details on error states, side effects (if any), and safety of repeated calls.

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 concise, front-loaded with the English title, and the full text in Chinese is informative with no superfluous sentences. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially covers return value (brief conclusion if settled) but does not specify exact format or structure. Given tool complexity (6 params, 1 required), it is mostly complete but lacks explicit return specification.

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 83% (high), baseline 3. The description adds context beyond schema: explains tid requirement, default timeoutSec=60 and intervalSec=5, and the effect of readOnSettled and stepTail/contentChars on response. This enhances understanding.

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 is a 'short-poll' for a worker turn, specifically for CLI clients, and distinguishes itself from the long wait of agent_wait_for_stop (5400s). The verb 'short-poll' and resource 'worker turn' are specific, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 recommends calling it in a loop after agent_start, contrasts with agent_wait_for_stop, and suggests timeout ranges (30-120s). It provides usage context for CLI clients but could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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