Window Wait For Change

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful limitation — that the Python source does not claim to provide DrawComplete — which signals a missing event type, but it omits blocking semantics, whether the call returns on timeout, and pagination/resume behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with the watched scope front-loaded, followed by the capability caveat. Nothing is padded, though the caveat clause is grammatically awkward and could be clearer.

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 values need not be explained, but the two undocumented parameters and the absence of blocking/timeout semantics leave real gaps for a long-polling tool. Listing the four watched aspects plus the DrawComplete limitation makes it minimally viable rather than complete.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The notion of 'revision' loosely maps to after_revision, but timeout_ms is never mentioned and no units, defaults, or ordering constraints are explained beyond what the bare schema already shows.

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 names a specific mechanism (long polling) and enumerates what is watched: the CURRENT project, active view, camera, and selection-set revision. That is concrete enough to separate it from the neighboring snapshot tools such as arcgis_pro_window_status, though it never states the unit of return or how it differs from the sibling in one explicit clause.

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?

Long polling implies a wait-until-changed use case, so the context is inferable, but the description never says when to prefer this over arcgis_pro_window_status or the job-status siblings, nor what to do if no change occurs. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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