chat_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the long-poll nature and early return, but omits key behaviors such as timeout handling, immediate return when already complete, potential errors, and side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's runtime behavior.

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, concise sentence with no filler, efficiently communicating the core purpose and return format. It could benefit from more details, but the structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is the only source of context beyond parameter names. It fails to explain parameter semantics, timeout behavior, or error conditions, making it incomplete for a 3-parameter polling tool with siblings like chat_history and council_poll.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter names or explain the semantics of task_id, wait, or timeout. It provides no value beyond the raw schema, leaving an agent without guidance on how to set these parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Long-poll') and a specific resource ('queued chat turn'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like chat_send and chat_history. It also specifies the returned shape, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 after a chat turn is queued, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where polling should be avoided, though the nature of the tool makes its use case fairly evident.

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