wait_for_player

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real behavioral detail: it blocks/polls, returns ready=false with the last state on timeout, and warns that a visible screen does not imply every action is legal. The timeout-return behavior is particularly useful since there is no output schema, though the cap on timeout_seconds is not mentioned.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core behavior comes first, then timeout semantics, then the read-only scope, then the legality caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing the timeout failure shape (ready=false + last state) and the no-gameplay-action scope. However, the success return shape is only implied, and the two input parameters (mode enum, timeout) are entirely unexplained, leaving meaningful gaps for a blocking/polling tool.

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 mentions neither parameter. The meaning of mode values ('singleplayer', 'multiplayer', 'auto') and especially what 'auto' detects is never explained, nor is the effect of timeout_seconds or its 0-30 bound. The tool's own text does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'Poll through enemy turns/loading until a player screen is available.' This clearly separates it from get_game_state (immediate read) and take_action (mutating), though it never names a sibling explicitly. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the polling semantics (use it while enemy turns/loading are in progress), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_game_state guidance and no statement of when not to call it. The 'Performs no gameplay actions' line hints at the boundary with take_action, but only obliquely.

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