grok_delegate_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and succeeds: it declares read-only, details the phases (preflight/worktree/etc.), explains that a dispatch may initially have no process/lane directory, and tells how to distinguish normal from stuck server via the phase field.

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 information-dense and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then details the job_id path, clarifies a normal edge case, and closes with the no-job_id listing mode and read-only note. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a thorough picture: output fields, phase values, the worker_pid condition, normal behavior for early dispatches, and the read-only nature. It is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant meaning: it explains what job_id returns (state, result, live progress fields) and how the tool behaves without job_id. This goes well beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 a background delegation started with grok_delegate_start, distinguishing it from start/status siblings. It specifies both usage modes (with/without job_id) and the exact output contents.

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?

It gives clear context for use (polling delegations from grok_delegate_start, both with and without job_id) and explains the normal early-phase behavior to avoid false alarms. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like grok_delegate_status.

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