vibekit_wait_for_task

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

The description discloses polling interval (every 5 seconds) and timeout, which are key behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (none). However, it does not specify what happens on timeout (error, partial result?) or whether the tool blocks, leaving some 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple polling tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core behavior but lacks details about return format, error handling, and guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_task'. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% with both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds the polling and timeout context but does not enrich parameter semantics significantly beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool waits for a task to complete and returns the result. It uses specific verbs ('wait') and resource ('task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_task' (retrieves status without waiting) and 'cancel_task'.

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 provides clear context that this tool is used to wait for task completion with polling behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., use 'get_task' for non-blocking status checks) or mention alternatives, but the polling details help indicate its appropriate use case.

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