lw_ble_poll_notifications

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two key traits: non-blocking semantics (empty result = nothing yet) and the overflow/'dropped counter' behavior when the reader falls behind. Missing disclosure of auth requirements and any rate/polling-frequency limits keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, no waste, with the non-blocking guarantee front-loaded ahead of the overflow-reporting detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. But with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description is thin on the identifiers and max_items semantics needed to call a 3-param tool correctly.

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 0% across all three parameters. The description never explains connection_id, subscription_id, or crucially max_items (the drain batch limit, default 50), so an agent must guess the meaning of the batch-size cap and the identifiers.

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 ('drain') and resource ('queued notifications') with the key qualifier 'without waiting'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the non-polling notification sibling lw_ble_wait_notification, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 'without waiting' implies this is the non-blocking option versus a blocking waiter, but the description never names lw_ble_wait_notification or states when to prefer poll over wait. Usage is implied rather than made explicit.

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