suno_poll

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

With no annotations, the description discloses several useful behaviors: it parses resultJson, gates on terminal status and non-empty audio, warns instead of tempting re-submission, and is free. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, what the return value contains, or any error/rate-limit behavior. It gives more than a bare description but leaves significant gaps.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, 'V6-aware' and 'Free' are telegraphic fragments that may confuse agents. It is concise but not optimally 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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the return value and how to interpret the gate/warn behavior. It mentions 'gates' and 'warns' but does not specify what the agent receives or what to do with the result. The meaning of 'Free' is also minimal. For a simple polling tool, this is incomplete.

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 only parameter, taskId, receives no additional meaning from the description. The schema provides a malformed type string instead of a description, and context shows 0% coverage. The description merely mentions 'task' without explaining how to obtain a valid ID, its format, or its source. This fails to compensate for the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('task'), and clarifies it as 'record-info'. This distinguishes it from siblings like suno_tasks (likely listing tasks) and suno_wait (waiting). The additional behavior about parsing resultJson and gating on terminal status adds specificity, though 'V6-aware' is unexplained jargon.

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 does not explicitly compare to alternatives. It implies usage after a generation call ('task id from any generation call' appears in the schema property, and it mentions warning against re-submission), but never states when to use this over suno_wait or suno_info. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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