wait_until_ready

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's real value is the added behavior: polling semantics, the 10s default / 30s cap, and the explicit warning that readiness does not equal action completion. That caveat is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by timing bounds and then the readiness caveat, which is the right order of importance.

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 an output schema present, explaining return values is not strictly required, and the description still summarizes states (ready, timeout, disconnected, unsupported) for quick scanning. It is nearly complete for a 2-optional-param, zero-required tool; only the view parameter's effect is left unexplained.

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 description must carry parameter meaning. It partially compensates by giving the timeout default (10) and cap (30), but never explains the 'view' parameter or its 'compact' default, nor the relationship between 'normal UI' and view modes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'poll read-only until normal UI is actionable', which tells the agent exactly what operation occurs. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like observe or action_status, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 only implied — the polling/readiness framing suggests calling it after launch or before an action, and the caveat 'readiness alone does not confirm an action completed' clarifies interpretation. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to an alternative sibling, leaving routing to inference.

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