polaris_collection_attempts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that collect_now requires an ACTIVE function with a PULL acquisition and an ACTIVE source, that provider failures surface as HTTP 500, and that retry retains the original attempt unchanged while returning a new evaluation. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate or pagination 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?

Front-loaded resource statement followed by a tight action/required-parameter bullet list that maps directly to the action enum. The trailing attempt JSON block is verbose but earns its place as a substitute for a missing output schema.

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?

For a dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the per-action semantics, an error-mode note, and the returned attempt JSON shape, which covers most of what an agent needs. The undocumented pagination parameters (limit, cursor, all_pages) remain a gap.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents attempt_id and fitness_function_id with their per-action meanings, but limit, cursor, and all_pages are left completely undefined in both schema and description, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 the resource (pull collection attempts) and enumerates four concrete actions with their required identifiers, so the agent knows exactly what each operation does. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like polaris_fitness_functions or polaris_measurement_sources, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Per-action context is strong: collect_now is described as running outside the schedule when an immediate evaluation is needed, and retry is framed as recovery after a provider outage. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternative tools are given, but the action-selection guidance is clear.

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