list_polls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by specifying that polls are returned with questions, options, and vote counts, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, authentication needs, pagination, or potential empty results, which would be more 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core function and output contents without unnecessary detail.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic context about what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks important operational context, such as whether results are sorted, restricted by permissions, or require any special setup. Given the absence of annotations, this feels minimally complete but not thorough.

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 schema shows only a required school_id number with zero description coverage. The description's phrase 'for a school' hints that school_id identifies a school, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its expected format. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly but only offers a minimal and somewhat implied connection.

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 'List polls for a school with questions, options, and vote counts' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (polls), includes the scope ('for a school'), and details what is returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schools or list_files.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention that polling-related functions should use this tool over other list_* tools, nor does it reference any prerequisites or alternative approaches.

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