grok_agent_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it reads and can block (from the wait_seconds schema), but does not state important behaviors: what happens when the job is not found, whether it is safe (read-only), or what happens on timeout. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It front-loads the primary purpose without extraneous details. Every word 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 polling tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, error cases, or when to provide limit versus wait_seconds. It also doesn't clarify how it differs from status tools. At least basic guidance on usage patterns would be expected.

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 only 33% (only wait_seconds has a description). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the agent gains little clarity on how to use limit and job_id. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it doesn't. Baseline is 2, but the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, so a 3 is borderline. Given the low coverage, a 2 is more appropriate.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('bounded progress/events and the final evidence receipt') for a 'typed job'. It adequately distinguishes from siblings like grok_agent_status (likely just status) and grok_delegate_poll (for delegate jobs), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. The core purpose is clear but could be more specific about what 'typed job' means.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grok_agent_status or grok_delegate_poll. It implies use for polling a job's progress, but lacks clear context like 'use for asynchronous operations' or 'when you need to wait for completion'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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