research_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions polling for status and results, omitting side effects, rate limits, or behavior when research is not in progress. This is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely short at one sentence, but this conciseness sacrifices substance. It is under-specified and does not earn its place with sufficient information, so the score is low.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the return value is, how to interpret poll results, or whether polling is blocking. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 single parameter 'notebook_id' has no description in the schema or in the tool description. The description does not explain what it refers to or how to use it, providing no added 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 the verb 'poll' and the resource 'research status and results', giving a basic idea of the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like research_start or research_import, resulting in moderate clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as research_start or other polling tools. The description lacks context for proper usage, earning a low score.

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