calmesh_list_polls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires 'read' scope and that it returns participant counts and status. This is useful behavioral context beyond the raw action, though it does not cover potential pagination or rate limits. For a simple list operation, this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return info and a scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, return contents, and required scope. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but these are not necessarily expected for a tool that lists 'all' polls. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds no parameter details but doesn't need to; the 'all' wording clarifies that no filtering parameters exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'List all scheduling polls' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_poll and decide_poll. It also specifies what the return includes (participant counts and status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: use this when you need to list all scheduling polls. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined and the 'all' implies no filtering. Since sibling tools are distinct, the usage is reasonably clear.

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