poll_events_now

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

With only idempotentHint as annotation, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and does so well: it states this is a mutating local operation, triggers immediate poll, inserts new normalized events, deduplicates against persisted data, and requires a runtime feature flag. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without contradicting the idempotentHint.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by side effects, prerequisites, and related tools. It is slightly redundant because the Args section duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions, but overall every paragraph earns its place and the length is appropriate.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it changes, prerequisites, how to discover valid source names, and how to read results afterward. It does not state what the tool returns, but the side effects and invocation details are sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section mostly repeats the schema text verbatim ('Optional source name to poll a single source; omit for all sources') without adding new meaning such as value formats, interactions between source and device_name, or validation rules.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll supported event sources now and durably deduplicate results.' It clearly identifies the action, the target, and a distinguishing side effect (deduplication), making it easy to differentiate from siblings like list_runtime_events and get_event_polling_status.

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 clear usage context: it is a mutating operation that triggers an immediate poll, requires UNIFI_RUNTIME_ENABLED=true, and tells the agent to use get_event_polling_status for source discovery and list_runtime_events for reading results. It names the relevant alternatives but does not explicitly frame when-not conditions.

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