Poll delegation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the safety profile with 'Read-only.' More importantly it adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations: the shape of a completed result (branch, changed_files, commits, diffstat) and the expectation that 'early minutes in git with no worker are normal,' which sets liveness expectations an agent would otherwise misread as a failure.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core action and then branch on job_id presence. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical result-field list makes it slightly compressed.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what a poll returns (state, result fields, phase, elapsed_s), covering the return-value burden. Nothing critical is missing for a two-optional-parameter read tool, though pagination/ordering semantics for the listing mode are left to the schema.

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%, and both parameters are already documented (job_id provenance and default-to-list, limit default 20). The description restates the job_id source and the omit-to-list behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (a delegation job) and explicitly ties it to grok_delegate_start as the producer, distinguishing it from the many sibling poll/status tools. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: 'With job_id: ...' versus 'Without job_id: newest jobs', so the two modes are unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like grok_delegate_status or grok_agent_poll, so the routing choice remains partly inferential.

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