veto_watch_poll

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

Description discloses that events are cleared on read (a destructive read behavior), adding context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. Also details event contents.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple single-parameter tool and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the polling behavior, event contents, and side effect of clearing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema's description of watch_id is clear. The tool description does not add further parameter information, meeting the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool polls for file-change events from an active watcher and returns accumulated events, clearly distinguishing it from related tools like veto_watch and veto_watch_stop.

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 implies usage after starting a watcher with veto_watch, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion cases.

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