poll_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the parameter defaults, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either. Since the bar is lower with annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every element earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description provides parameter semantics and a clear purpose, but it lacks usage context (when to call it) and doesn't mention any limitations or edge cases. For a poll tool, guidance on typical polling intervals might be expected, but its absence is not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief semantic for each parameter (e.g., 'query: YouTrack query filter', 'since_minutes: Minutes to look back'), which gives meaning beyond the raw schema. The explanations are concise and useful, though not deeply detailed.

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 a specific action ('Poll for recently changed issues') with a time-based scope ('within the last N minutes'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues or get_issues. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 such as search_issues or get_issues. It implies a purpose ('poll for changes') but offers no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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