rca_analysis_poll_task

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the full polling state machine (pending → running → completed/failed), when result/error are populated, the feature-gate requirement, and the not_found behavior for invalid or other-user task IDs. This gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's runtime 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by actionable polling instructions, a state summary, and return shape. Each sentence adds functional value, and the bullet under Args keeps parameter wiring clear without unnecessary fluff.

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 an async polling tool, the description covers the full lifecycle: submission source, polling cadence, state transitions, result/error fields, feature gate, and error cases. The output schema exists and the description also sketches the returned JSON, so the agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 description adds the important semantic that task_id comes from rca_analysis_run_async's response, which is necessary for correct invocation. However, it does not describe token or client_id in the description itself, and the stated schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the parameter documentation gap.

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 and resource: 'Poll the status of an async RCA task submitted via rca_analysis_run_async.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from related analysis tools like rca_analysis_get_result or rca_analysis_run_async by focusing on polling an already-submitted async task.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call repeatedly every few seconds until status is 'completed' or 'failed', and notes there is no push notification. It clearly ties usage to tasks submitted via rca_analysis_run_async, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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