xmpp_poll_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Read' (non-destructive) and 'without blocking' (non-blocking execution), and hints at cursor persistence ('durable cursor'). This covers the essential safety and execution profile, though deeper details (e.g., whether the cursor auto-advances, error conditions) are not disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place: 'Read' (verb), 'allowlisted messages' (object), 'after a durable cursor' (mechanism), and 'without blocking' (behavior). There is zero fluff or redundancy, making it an excellent model of concise writing.

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 output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility. However, given the moderate complexity of a cursor-based polling tool, the description misses key context: what 'allowlisted' means, how the cursor should be managed, and what `request_id` is for. These gaps make it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It effectively explains `after_cursor` via 'after a durable cursor' but provides no insight into `limit` or `request_id`. `request_id` in particular is cryptic and remains unexplained, leaving two of three parameters semantically underdefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies the resource ('allowlisted messages'), and adds crucial modifiers ('after a durable cursor', 'without blocking') that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like `xmpp_wait_for_message` (blocking) and `xmpp_send_message` (sending). This precisely conveys the tool's function and scope.

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 phrase 'without blocking' provides clear context that this tool is intended for non-blocking message retrieval, implicitly contrasting with `xmpp_wait_for_message`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or define exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to choose this over a blocking wait.

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