comet_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. It discloses behavioral traits such as the tool being callable repeatedly for monitoring, which implies it's non-destructive and likely read-only. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific return formats, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, as none exist.

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 and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by adding clear value without any waste, making it front-loaded and efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (simple monitoring with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage but lacks details on what 'status and progress' entails (e.g., return values or error conditions). For a tool with no structured data support, it should ideally provide more behavioral context to be fully helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. According to the rules, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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's purpose as 'Check agent status and progress' with the specific verb 'check' and resource 'agent status and progress'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like comet_ask, comet_connect, etc., by focusing on monitoring rather than initiating actions or managing resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., comet_mode might also relate to status), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Call repeatedly to monitor agentic tasks,' indicating when to use this tool (for ongoing monitoring) and implying when not to use it (for one-time checks or other operations). This distinguishes it from alternatives that might perform single actions, making it highly effective for guiding agent selection.

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