poll

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning only new data and tracking offset server-side, which implies a non-idempotent, stateful operation. However, it does not mention side effects like consuming the updates or what happens if there is no new data. The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Everything new since your last poll'). It includes a concise list of return contents and a critical behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain the return format and usage context. It lists the three types of returned data (transcript batch, panel state, pending results) and notes the single-call-per-turn constraint. However, it leaves the 'session' parameter unexplained and does not clarify what to do with the returned data or how errors/empty states are handled. For a polling tool, this is a notable gap.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'session' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description completely ignores this parameter, offering no explanation of what 'session' represents or how it affects the call. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 clearly states the tool returns new updates since the last poll, listing specific content (transcript batch, panel state, pending results). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on delta updates, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 provides usage guidance: 'One call per turn' and the note about server-side offset tracking imply a polling pattern. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'use transcript instead for full history'). There is no clear 'when not to use' guidance, so the score is below a 4.

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