grok_agent_poll

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Read', which implies safety, and mentions 'bounded' and 'final evidence receipt'. It doesn't state whether polling is safe to repeat, rate limits, what happens to the job state, or the return format. The lack of output schema makes this a significant gap.

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, well-structured sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb. It earns its place by conveying the primary purpose, but its brevity contributes to under-specification for a tool with minimal schema annotations.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool's context. It fails to cover key aspects like parameter semantics, return behavior, or what 'bounded' means in practice. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'limit' is only hinted by 'bounded', and 'job_id' is never explicitly linked to the 'typed job' mentioned. The agent is left without guidance on what these parameters control or require.

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 reads progress/events and a final evidence receipt for a typed job, with 'Read' as a specific verb. It distinguishes from related tools like grok_agent_status by focusing on bounded progress and final receipt, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this poll tool versus alternatives like grok_agent_status or grok_delegate_poll. The description implies polling use by mentioning 'bounded progress/events', but it lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative references.

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