nous_portal_auth_poll

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it makes one unmetered external request, atomically stores tokens, and does not return token values. This gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects, though it could mention whether the token retrieval is idempotent or destructive on retry.

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 two sentences long, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose, behavior, and constraints without unnecessary details.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves (external request, token storage), and what it returns (nothing). The agent has enough information to use it correctly in the auth flow.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed.

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 action ('poll'), the resource ('a previously started device-code login'), and the scope ('exactly once'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nous_portal_auth_start' (starts flow) and 'nous_portal_status' (general status) by specifying the exact step in the authentication process.

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 use after 'nous_portal_auth_start' with 'previously started' and constraints polling to exactly once. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., not to poll repeatedly) or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., having a device code from auth_start).

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