poll_operator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check whether an operator can run,' without explaining side effects (if any), error behavior, output format compatibility, or implications (e.g., whether it consumes resources). This is minimal and insufficient for safe agent use.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It is not verbose, and the structure is clear. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices essential information for brevity, moving it slightly down from a perfect score.

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 single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description should clarify how 'idname' maps to an operator and what 'can run' means in practice. It lacks any explanation of the parameter or usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema has a required parameter 'idname' with no type or description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'idname' at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning. This is a major gap because the parameter is essential and undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether an operator can run'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list, search, get info, or call operators. The term 'poll' reinforces its checking nature, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_operator_info or call_operator. It does not mention prerequisites, context requirements, or scenarios where polling is preferred over direct invocation.

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