agents_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (waiting until terminal state with a timeout bound) but does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether the call is read-only, or error handling for invalid task IDs. It adds some context beyond the name, but leaves gaps.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple (2 flat params, no output schema), but without annotations or parameter descriptions, the description is thin. It omits what happens on timeout and what the function returns. A mid-level completeness score is appropriate given the minimal context.

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 provides no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does explain that wait_seconds bounds the wait, giving it meaning, but task_id is left implicit. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description only partially compensates.

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 function with a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('agent task'), and adds the key scope ('terminal state', 'bounded by wait_seconds'). This distinguishes it from siblings like agents_status, which likely just checks status, and agents_cancel.

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 for blocking until a task finishes, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like agents_status for polling, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Sibling names are available but not referenced.

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