onda_terminal_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout default, immediate return, and cursor advancement. These are critical behavioral traits that an agent must know to use the tool safely.

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 four sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, blocking/timeout, cursor behavior, and usage loop. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 description covers the essential behavior and a usage pattern, which is sufficient for a simple polling tool. However, it does not clarify what happens on timeout (e.g., whether an empty response is returned) or how invalid session IDs are handled, leaving a minor 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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing the default timeout. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 starts with 'Long-poll a subscribed terminal session for new output,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'subscribed' and the polling mechanism, and the cursor advancement detail reinforces its unique role.

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?

It provides an explicit usage loop ('subscribe -> poll -> poll -> ... -> unsubscribe') and explains the immediate-return behavior when data is pending. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives (e.g., 'use read for one-shot') or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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