privacyflow_poll_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that messages are 'consumed on poll (destructive read),' which is a critical operational trait, and it notes that the tool returns messages from all authorized apps. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but the key destructive behavior is clearly communicated.

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 three focused sentences: the first names the action and resource, the second clarifies scope, and the third highlights destructive consumption and supported messengers. There is no fluff or repetition, and it reads well.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it polls, the scope of returned messages, the destructive read semantics, and supported messaging protocols. It could optionally describe the response shape, but at this complexity level the description is largely complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, including a clear description, default, and range. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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 starts with the specific verb 'Poll' and identifies the resource as 'incoming messages from your PrivacyFlow app queues.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like send_messages, list_apps, and check_health by focusing on message retrieval/consumption.

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 makes the basic purpose clear and mentions that it returns messages from authorized apps, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a sibling alternative, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied API key authorization.

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