auth_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Poll' implies a non-destructive read, but the description does not clarify whether it blocks, times out, consumes the state, or has side effects. The output schema exists but does not cover behavioral traits.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The core action and target ('Poll pending OAuth state') are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description plus schema is enough to make a basic call. However, it lacks lifecycle context—such as that the state likely originates from auth_start—and does not specify polling behavior like retry or timeout semantics. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'state' parameter. It does partially by suggesting the state refers to a pending OAuth state, which adds useful context beyond the bare parameter name. However, it does not explain where the state value comes from or its expected format.

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') with a clear resource ('pending OAuth state') and specifies the outcome ('callback status and auth code availability'). It is mostly distinct from siblings like auth_status, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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 alternatives such as auth_start, auth_finish, or auth_status. The term 'Poll' implies it is used during an OAuth flow, but the description does not state prerequisites, sequencing, or when not to use it.

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