Poll document view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool is internal and what it refreshes, but gives no indication of side effects, return values, or behavior when called. This is insufficient transparency for a tool that agents might encounter.

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 only two sentences and immediately front-loads the critical 'Internal' label. It is efficient with words, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the function from the usage restriction.

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 and no annotations, and the description is minimal. While 'Not for direct agent use' is a key context, the description lacks details about return values, invocation patterns, or how it relates to the broader workflow. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool beyond avoiding it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 explicitly states what the tool does (refreshes upload/parse/render status, page images, and extracted blocks) and identifies it as an internal viewer widget. This is a specific verb+resource combination and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_document by labeling it as internal.

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 a clear exclusion: 'Not for direct agent use.' This tells the agent when not to use it, which is valuable guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like poll_view_commands, 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.