poll_changes

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It states it returns changed issues within a time window, but does not disclose whether changes are cumulative, what the output format is (despite having an output schema), or any rate limits. It adequately implies a read-only operation but lacks depth.

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 compact two-sentence docstring plus bulleted Args list. Every word is functional: the first line defines the purpose, and the list clarifies parameters. No redundancy or filler.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and defaults. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, or error handling, but for a simple polling tool with all optional parameters and defaults, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: query as a YouTrack filter, since_minutes as lookback time, max_results as maximum count, and instance as optional instance. Default values are also stated. However, the query format is not elaborated, which could be helpful.

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 for recently changed issues within a time range, distinguishing it from siblings like search_issues (general query) or get_issues (static list). The verb 'poll' and phrase 'recently changed issues' are specific and actionable.

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, get_issue_changes_summary, or get_issues. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The only context is the description of parameters, which is insufficient.

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