Wait for Eden Launch State

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: it continues an existing wait, does not launch a second process, and never duplicates a load request. This addresses side-effect concerns beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first, then usage guidance. No filler words, every sentence adds value.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover read-only, the description provides the key purpose, usage context, and a crucial behavioral guarantee. It doesn't explain timeout behavior or parameter mapping, but the enum and defaults are self-explanatory. Good coverage for a wait 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?

Schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the role of launch_id/session_id or how target enum maps to the described states, leaving the agent to infer from schema defaults. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'wait' and identifies the resource 'Eden launch state,' explaining it continues a previously started Eden process until it exposes control or produces its first frame. It distinguishes itself from eden_start_game by explicitly stating it does not start a second process.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after a retryable eden_start_game timeout. Also gives exclusions: no second process started and no duplicated update load request. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it clearly differentiates from start_game.

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