battle_poll

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

The description discloses the long-polling behavior and the 30-second wait, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, it leaves gaps: what happens after the timeout expires, whether polling has side effects like consuming messages, and whether repeated calls are safe are not addressed.

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 short sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a precise usage condition and the key timeout behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 polling tool, the description covers when to use it and the wait behavior. But it does not explain what the tool returns beyond 'replies,' what occurs on timeout, or whether polling is a read-only operation. With no output schema and no annotations, those gaps make it only minimally 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 100%, so the schema already documents roomId and 'after' with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to either parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action, 'Poll for new messages,' and ties it to a concrete context by mentioning battle_send_message. It clearly identifies the resource (messages) and distinguishes the tool as a recovery polling mechanism rather than a general status check.

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 phrase 'Use this only if battle_send_message timed out waiting' is an explicit usage condition that names the sibling tool and the precise scenario in which it applies. It effectively tells an agent when to choose this over alternatives and when not to use it.

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