Poll Live Gui Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a distinct and important behavioral fact beyond them: this tool performs no actual polling and only reports unavailability, which prevents an agent from expecting streamed session data or side effects. It still omits what the response payload looks like, but the core no-op disclosure is valuable.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler — appropriate for a stub capability. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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 deliberately unsupported stub with no output schema, the description conveys the essential outcome (unsupported). But it does not tell the agent what to do next — e.g., use poll_live_gui_session_events or describe_live_gui_support — nor what the returned report contains, so it is only minimally 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?

With 2 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the burden falls on the description to explain semantics. The description says nothing about schematic_path (undocumented in the schema) or workspace_root, and gives no hint about what a GUI session is keyed on. It adds zero meaning beyond the schema.

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 behavior — the tool reports that GUI-session polling is unsupported — which is honest and alert-worthy given the name suggests actual polling. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling poll_live_gui_session_events, which is the tool an agent would reasonably expect to use instead, so the agent is left guessing why a 'poll' tool exists at all.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description implies calling it yields an 'unsupported' report, but it does not mention the working alternative (poll_live_gui_session_events) or describe_live_gui_support, nor state that agents should generally avoid calling it. The agent must open the sibling list and infer the intended routing.

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