yenflow_poll_scene

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

With no annotations and only an alias statement, the description discloses no behavioral traits such as polling, blocking, mutating, authentication needs, or failure cases. An agent cannot anticipate side effects or return behavior from this description alone.

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 short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains one clause and does not earn its place by conveying meaningful, actionable information.

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?

The tool has required parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, but the description offers none of the needed contextual detail. It at least names the sibling tool flow_poll_scene as a reference, which is a minimal foothold, but it is far from complete for a 3-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to media_id, project_id, or profile. The schema's property names are the only hint, which is insufficient for understanding expected formats or semantics.

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 only states 'Alias for flow_poll_scene,' which essentially restates the tool name rather than explaining what the tool does. It gives no explicit verb-and-resource meaning such as 'poll a scene's generation status.' Without relying on sibling knowledge, an agent cannot determine the tool's actual behavior.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use yenflow_poll_scene versus flow_poll_scene or any other sibling. It is not misleading, but it provides zero guidance on selection or context.

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