ui_monitor_poll

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

The description discloses the tool polls once (not continuous) and uses cursor filtering. Annotations only include openWorldHint=false, which is consistent. It adds context by specifying the return behavior, though it does not mention side effects or permissions.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads key information. Every word is necessary and adds value.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (poll once, cursor-filtered). It does not detail event types or error conditions, but given the limited complexity, it is relatively 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 description mentions 'cursor-filtered events', which explains the after_cursor parameter's purpose, but does not describe monitor_id. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but is not fully informative.

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 polls a semantic UI monitor once and returns cursor-filtered events. The verb 'poll' and resource 'semantic UI monitor' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like ui_monitor_start or ui_monitor_wait by emphasizing a one-time operation.

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 implies usage for one-time polling rather than continuous monitoring, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ui_monitor_events or ui_monitor_start. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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