service_wait

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses crucial behaviors: it never raises on timeout, always returns `met` and `timed_out`, specifies that 'running' uses task-counting logic rather than ServiceStatus, and describes the no-UpdateStatus edge case for 'update-converged'. The poll_interval capping behavior is also explained.

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?

The description is well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a paragraph on the shared contract and modes, then a clean arg list. Every sentence adds meaningful information; the length is justified by the two-mode complexity without being verbose.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and two distinct modes, the description covers all necessary aspects: timeout behavior, polling logic, edge cases, parameter formats, and return values. It is self-contained enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With zero schema coverage, the description provides detailed semantics for every parameter: `id_or_name` as service id/name, `until` enum with defaults, `replicas` as a mode-specific override, `timeout_seconds` with default 600, and `poll_interval` with default 2 and >0 constraint. It also documents the 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 'Block until a swarm service's tasks converge, or a rolling update finishes', which is a specific verb+resource directive. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like container_wait and node_wait by focusing on swarm service task convergence and rolling updates, and further specifies two modes.

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 explains when each mode ('running' vs 'update-converged') is appropriate, and the `replicas` parameter gives the concrete use case of right after a `service_scale` call. It also references `container_wait` as an analogy, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives.

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