resemble_get_detection_answer

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. 'Poll' suggests a repeated, non-blocking retrieval pattern, but the description does not disclose whether the answer may be pending, whether the call is safe to repeat, what states/errors are possible, or what prerequisites exist. The behavioral detail is limited to the single verb.

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 one short sentence with a clear verb-first structure and no filler. It is economical, although it is terse enough that it leaves important usage context unaddressed; it is still appropriately compact for what it does say.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of sibling tools for asking questions and getting detections, the description does not provide enough context. It omits the prerequisite relationship with 'resemble_ask_detection_question', the need to poll repeatedly, and where the UUIDs come from. The output schema helps with return value shape but not with invocation context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate for the two parameters. 'detect_uuid' and 'question_uuid' are only named in the schema with no explanation of their roles or how they relate to each other. The description mentions a 'Detect Intelligence question' but does not clarify which UUID identifies the detection vs. the question.

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 uses a specific verb ('poll') and names the resource ('the answer for a Detect Intelligence question'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling 'resemble_ask_detection_question'. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with 'resemble_get_detection' or explain the relationship between these tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The word 'poll' implies repeated checking, but the description never states that a question must first be asked via 'resemble_ask_detection_question', nor does it say when to prefer this over other detection-related tools.

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