node_wait

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it reveals timeout behavior (never raises, returns met/timed_out), polling interval semantics, the capping of poll_interval by remaining time, and return keys. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence adds operational value (timeout semantics, use cases, limitations, argument meanings). The args block is clearly formatted and scannable.

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, it compensates by specifying the exact return dict keys. It covers behavior, default values, edge cases (large poll interval), and relationships to sibling tools, making it fully self-contained for invocation.

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 has zero descriptions, but the description fully documents all four params: id_or_name, until with enum and default, timeout_seconds with default, poll_interval with default and >0 constraint plus cap behavior. It also documents return dict keys.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Block until a swarm node's Status.State reaches a target value.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming service_wait and node_list as covering related but different needs.

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 gives explicit common uses (until='ready' after join, until='down' when draining) and an explicit exclusion: does not track task placement, with guidance to inspect service tasks instead. It also references service_wait and node_list as alternatives.

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