poller_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does convey that the tool is a read-only status check with no side effects implied, and it indicates the output will describe running state plus captured data. However, it doesn't disclose detail like what 'captured' means, whether data can be empty, or whether any background process state is affected by calling this tool.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the type of information returned. There is no filler or redundant wording, and the length is appropriate for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool, the description gives enough context to understand the purpose and general output. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact shape or examples of return values would strengthen it, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema describes the empty object completely, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate because there are none to document.

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 identifies a specific status resource: whether background history recording is running and what it has captured. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like track_history or feed_health, but the phrasing is specific enough that an agent can tell it is a status/query tool rather than a recording or retrieval tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as track_history or sighting_history. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred, so the agent must infer usage from the name and vague description.

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