node_wait

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: it never raises on timeout, always returns met and timed_out, polls at poll_interval, and caps poll_interval by remaining time so a large value cannot exceed timeout. These details inform the agent of failure modes and timing semantics not present in 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?

Though longer than typical descriptions, every sentence is load-bearing: core blocking behavior, timeout semantics, common use cases, task-tracking caveat, parameter list, and return shape. The structure is well-organized with paragraphs and an args block, front-loaded with the essential action.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explicit return-field list (node, until, met, timed_out, state, availability, waited_seconds) is essential. Combined with full parameter semantics, timeout/polling behavior, and caveats about task placement, the description is complete for a wait-type 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: id_or_name, until (with allowed states), timeout_seconds (default 300), and poll_interval (default 2, >0, capped). It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type and enum definitions.

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 opening sentence precisely states the verb, resource, and target: 'Block until a swarm node's Status.State reaches a target value.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming what it does not do (task placement tracking) and pointing to alternatives like service_wait and node_list.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided ('until="ready"' after a newly joined node, 'until="down"' while draining a node before removal). The description also states clear exclusions: it does not track task placement, and for that check the agent should inspect services' tasks directly, with service_wait and node_list named as relevant alternatives.

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