Wait until a project is live

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: polling interval (2s), terminal states, and return conditions (success vs error). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so additional behavioral context is appropriate.

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 two sentences, both essential, with key details front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior. It notes that timeout defaults to 10 minutes, which is useful. However, it could mention what happens on timeout (returns error presumably) for full completeness.

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% and descriptions are provided in schema. The description adds no further parameter specifics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 verb 'Wait' and target resource 'project', and mentions the polling behavior and terminal states. However, it could more precisely differentiate from sibling tool 'project_status' which also deals with project states.

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 implies usage when waiting for a project to finish, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'project_status' or how it differs from checking manually.

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