sys_pollbuf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what the response contains, whether there is any delay, or any other side effects. For a zero-parameter read-only operation, the disclosure of read-only is useful but limited.

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, compact phrase that front-loads the verb and resource, with the read-only qualifier appended. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is immediately clear. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple action.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly adequate. It tells the agent what it does and that it is read-only. However, it does not clarify what 'buffer usage' refers to (e.g., which buffer, what units), and it does not describe the return format. Given the simplicity, a 3 reflects that the description is minimal 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe. The empty schema is fully covered by the description's implicit 'poll buffer usage' – there is nothing missing.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('buffer usage'), and the parenthetical '(read-only)' clarifies the operation type. It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes itself from other sys_* tools that might show status or statistics. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sys_qrybuf or show_statistic, which could also relate to buffers or usage.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. Given the large number of sibling tools (many of which are also read-only status queries), an agent has no basis for choosing this one over similar tools without additional context.

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