Generate Visual and Wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions waiting for completion, implying a blocking operation, but it doesn't disclose potential timeouts, failure modes, authentication requirements, or that it makes API calls. It also omits side effects like resource creation or quota consumption, leaving the agent insufficiently informed.

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, zero fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function and composition. It is appropriately terse for a composite tool, though one could argue for more detail given complexity, conciseness is a strength.

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?

Despite having 18 parameters and a composite operation, the description is extremely short. It names the two operations but doesn't cover orchestration details like polling interval, timeout, error handling, or how the waiting behaves with multiple visuals. An output schema exists but return values are not the gap; the tool's behavioral semantics remain underspecified.

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 provides descriptions for all 18 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter semantics. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description doesn't clarify interactions like visual_id vs visual_query, which the schema already documents individually.

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 primary action: 'Generate a visual and wait for completion.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning it combines generate_visual and check_status into one operation, making its purpose unambiguous and unique.

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 context by stating it combines generate_visual and polling check_status, signaling that this is the one-shot operation when you need the final completed visual. It references sibling tools indirectly but doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, such as when you need to poll manually or perform other tasks in between.

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