wisepanel_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: the long-polling mechanism ('Long-polls up to 15 seconds'), immediate return condition ('returning immediately when panelist responses arrive'), and state management ('Returns new events since last poll'). This covers timing, triggering, and incremental data retrieval without contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise sentences that add critical behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (stateful polling), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the operation, timing, and data return logic. However, it does not specify the format or structure of returned 'events', which could be important for an agent to process results, leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'run_id' documented in the schema as 'The run ID from wisepanel_start'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Poll a running Wisepanel deliberation for new events') and resource ('Wisepanel deliberation'), distinguishing it from siblings like wisepanel_start (initiates), wisepanel_cancel (terminates), and wisepanel_result (retrieves final results). It precisely defines the tool's function as retrieving incremental updates during an active deliberation.

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 when to use this tool ('Poll a running Wisepanel deliberation for new events'), implying it should be used during an active deliberation started with wisepanel_start. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., after deliberation ends) or name alternatives like wisepanel_result for final outcomes, which would elevate it to a 5.

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