wait_for_cdn_freshness

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses critical behavioral traits: polling nature, single-vantage probe (us-east-1), timeout handling with isError=true return, and dependency on prior upload. Could mention whether it is read-only or has side effects, but implied non-destructive.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: core action, mutable-only rule, usage motivation, geographic detail, error handling. Front-loaded with the main verb and constraint. No fluff.

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?

Covers dependencies and error case well, but missing success return structure (e.g., what happens when SHA matches before timeout). Given no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context like 'from a preceding upload' for sha256, but overall does not provide significant new semantics beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb-pair 'Polls the CDN until... expected SHA-256' combined with explicit mutable-only constraint. Distinct from sibling tools like assets_get (which checks current content) and assets_put (upload).

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 re-upload to mutable key when end-user-visible URL must reflect new content. Also explicitly states when NOT to use: for immutable URLs (no waiting needed). Provides fallback advice on timeout.

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