rca_analysis_poll_task

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return JSON (task_id, status, progress, result, error), which helps the agent understand the lifecycle. It does not add conflicting or superfluous information.

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 very concise: two sentences front-loading the purpose and listing args/returns. There is no wasted text. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing all parameters and their purposes while remaining succinct.

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 polling tool, the description covers the async relationship, the expected output format, and error indication. With output schema and annotations filling safety/completeness, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is incomplete parameter documentation, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 only mentions 'task_id' in the args, ignoring the required 'token' and optional 'client_id' parameters from the input schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate. The schema itself includes a description for task_id, but the tool description adds no new semantic guidance for the other parameters.

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 'Poll the status of an async RCA task' and specifies it is for tasks submitted via 'rca_analysis_run_async'. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like synchronous analysis tools or result retrieval tools.

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 implicitly guides usage by linking to rca_analysis_run_async as the task submission method, setting clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as rca_analysis_get_result for synchronous results. Given the clarity of the async polling use case, a 4 is appropriate.

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