federation_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it usefully discloses the returned counters (pending/claimed/done/dead), implying a read-only polling operation. It stops short of stating side effects, whether it is safe/idempotent, or any rate/polling cadence for a tool literally named 'poll'.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the status/counters and then the workflow. No redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential value (returned counters) and the orchestration context. The only real gap is the undocumented session_id, which slightly undercuts 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions session_id at all, so neither the schema nor the description explains where the id comes from or its format. With a required, undocumented parameter the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (federation session) and output (pending/claimed/done/dead counters), which is more informative than a bare 'poll'. However it does not explicitly distinguish this status tool from status-like siblings (e.g. federation_heartbeat, loop_status), leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('Опрашивай, пока роли набирают кандидатов') and names the concrete follow-up alternative ('затем federation_assemble'), so the agent knows both when to call it and what the next step is. Nothing is left implicit.

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