agentbus_poll

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

The description discloses 'at-least-once delivery', a meaningful behavioral trait indicating possible duplicate deliveries and implied consumption semantics. With no annotations provided, this adds value beyond the schema, though it omits other details like read-only vs. side-effect on the cursor.

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 concise, with two short phrases that are front-loaded and contain no redundant information. Every word contributes to the 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's mechanics. It omits parameter semantics, ordering, and error behavior, making it incomplete for correct invocation, especially with no annotations to fill 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%, and the description only hints at a 'cursor' without explicitly mapping to the since_id parameter. It does not explain the meaning of limit or topic, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool fetches events after a cursor, using the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'events'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentbus_publish (writing) and agentbus_status (status checks), and the cursor aspect adds specificity.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and sibling context (polling for events after a cursor), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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