comet_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function as checking status/progress and being callable repeatedly, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on what specific status/progress information is returned, whether there are rate limits for repeated calls, or any error conditions—leaving behavioral gaps for a monitoring 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple monitoring with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and how-to-use but lacks details on return values, error handling, or specific monitoring aspects. For a tool with no structured data support, this leaves room for improvement in 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and the description doesn't need to cover 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's purpose with specific verbs ('check agent status and progress') and identifies the resource ('agent'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on monitoring rather than asking, connecting, changing modes, capturing screens, or stopping. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings by name, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides clear context for usage ('monitor agentic tasks') and suggests a pattern ('call repeatedly'), which helps guide when to use it. It implies this is for ongoing monitoring rather than one-time actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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