wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that the unit is game ticks rather than wall-clock time and that the wait is 'bounded', but it never says what the bound is, what happens if the bound is exceeded, whether the call blocks, or whether the game state advances during the wait. 'Bounded' is asserted without the boundary being defined.

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 short sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. The only minor cost is that 'bounded' hints at a limit the description never supplies, leaving the reader with an unresolved 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?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive wait tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the essential semantics of the call. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the undefined bound and the absence of any when-to-use guidance leave it only minimally 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%, so the schema documents nothing about the single required integer 'ticks'. The description does add the crucial unit ('normal Factorio game ticks') and treats the value as a count, but it omits the valid range, any maximum, and what happens if the bound is violated.

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 states a specific verb ('Wait') on a specific resource ('normal Factorio game ticks'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling action tools (craft, move, mine). It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself explicitly with observe_local or observe_actor, which are the closest alternatives for advancing/pausing interaction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the observation siblings, nor any condition or prerequisite for waiting. The only implicit guidance is the unit of waiting being game ticks. An agent must infer the use case (let the simulation advance) entirely on its own.

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