socket_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the basic behavior (check readable, optional wait) but lacks details on side effects, return format, or what happens on timeout. Adequate for a simple poll but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavior, but could mention edge cases like closed sockets or timeouts. Mostly complete.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions timeout_seconds > 0 but does not explain socket_id or provide details on parameter usage beyond the schema titles. Adds some value but incomplete.

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 checks for readable data and explains the timeout behavior. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tcp_recv/udp_recv by suggesting those for receiving.

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 guidance by suggesting that most clients can use tcp_recv/udp_recv instead, implying socket_poll is for cases when you want to check without receiving. It could be more explicit about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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