wait_for_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool blocks, has a timeout, can be resumed with repeated calls, and returns the same structure as get_task_status with final Markdown in the result on SUCCESS.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds usage nuance and return value. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, return structure, and a specific usage scenario (long videos). Minor gaps exist: 'poll_interval' is not explained, and timeout/error handling details are only partially specified.

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%, and the description only indirectly explains the 'timeout' parameter via the long-video remark. 'task_id' is inferable from context but never explicitly defined, and 'poll_interval' is entirely undocumented, including units or purpose.

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's action: blocking/polling a note generation task until completion or timeout. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_task_status by emphasizing the blocking behavior and the ability to call multiple times for long videos.

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?

It provides clear usage context: for long videos, the task may exceed timeout, so the tool can be called repeatedly to continue waiting. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the blocking vs. non-blocking distinction is implied.

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