list_polls

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds that caller must be a group member, explains default filter behavior, ordering, and pagination parameters. Also details the ambiguity between 'didn't vote' and 'abstained' that list_polls cannot resolve, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: first sentence defines purpose, then details parameters, then use cases, then sibling differentiation. It is relatively concise but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Caller must be a group member' could be part of parameter notes). Still, no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description explains ordering, pagination, membership requirement, and use cases. It covers the main aspects needed to use the tool correctly. Could mention what fields are returned per poll object, but overall sufficient for a simple list tool with good annotations.

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 100%; description reinforces defaults and meanings (status default 'active', limit default 50, offset default 0). Adds clarity on the 'all' status option ('every kept poll') and explains that status defaults to 'active'. This provides additional context not in schema descriptions.

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 'List polls in a Loomio group, ordered by creation date (newest first).' It specifies the action (list), resource (polls), and scope (group with ordering). It also distinguishes from sibling 'get_user_activity' by noting it for per-user participation questions.

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?

Provides explicit required parameter (group_id), optional filters with defaults, and concrete use cases: 'what's up for vote in group X', 'show me past poll results', 'check what's already proposed'. Also clearly states when not to use it: for per-user participation questions, prefer get_user_activity, with reasoning about ambiguity.

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