directive_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does good work: it reveals that the tool returns unacknowledged directives and defines the stop and pause semantics. It doesn't cover edge cases like no pending directives or how resume is triggered, but the main runtime contract is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The key instruction ('poll between units of work') is front-loaded, and the response semantics are packed into a compact second sentence.

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?

The description gives enough context for the polling semantics but leaves the goal parameter unexplained and does not state what happens when there are no directives, nor how a worker is identified. For a simple read-oriented tool this is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%; only cwd is documented. The description mentions 'this worker' but never explains the required worker parameter or what goal means, and it doesn't add parameter-level meaning to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource, 'directives this worker has not acknowledged', and gives a clear operational verb, 'Poll between units of work'. It also distinguishes this tool from directive_issue/directive_ack by focusing on unacknowledged directives rather than creating or acknowledging them.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: poll between units of work, and instructions to obey the returned directive. It does not mention when not to poll or name alternatives, so it misses the full when/when-not contrast, but the usage context is clear.

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